The nuclear industry is making a big bet on small power plants

June 8, 2018 by Scott L. Montgomery, The Conversation
NuScale Power aims to build the nation’s first advanced small modular reactor. Credit: U.S. Department of Energy

Until now, generating nuclear power has required massive facilities surrounded by acres of buildings, electrical infrastructure, roads, parking lots and more. The nuclear industry is trying to change that picture – by going small.

Efforts to build the nation's first "advanced small modular ," or SMR, in Idaho, are on track for it to become operational by the mid-2020s. The project took a crucial step forward when the company behind it, NuScale, secured an important security certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But the first ones could be generating by 2020 in China, Argentina and Russia, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The debate continues over whether this technology is worth pursuing, but the nuclear industry isn't waiting for a verdict. Nor, as an energy scholar, do I think it should. This new generation of smaller and more technologically advanced reactors offer many advantages, including an assembly-line approach to production, vastly reduced meltdown risks and greater flexibility in terms of where they can be located, among others.

How small is small?

Most small modular reactors now in the works range between 50 megawatts – roughly enough power for 60,000 modern U.S. homes – and 200 megawatts. And there are designs for even smaller "mini" or "micro-reactors" that generate as few as 4 megawatts.

In contrast, full-sized nuclear reactors built today will generate about 1,000-1,600 megawatts of electricity, although many built before 1990, including over half the 99 reactors now operating in the U.S., are smaller than this.

But small nuclear reactors aren't actually new. India has the most, with 18 reactors with capacity ranging between 90 and 220 megawatts, which were built between 1981 and 2011.

The U.S., Russia, China, India, France and the U.K. operate hundreds of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. Russia has dozens of nuclear-powered icebreakers cruising around the Arctic, and its first floating nuclear power plant has been completed and will be deployed in 2019 near the town of Pevek in East Siberia.

The Siberian plant will replace four 12-megawatt reactors the Soviets built in the 1970s to power a remote town and administrative center, as well as mining and oil drilling operations.

Even though the reactors will be small, they may operate at much bigger power plants with multiple reactors. NuScale, for example, wants to install 12 reactors at its initial Idaho site. Based on the company's latest projections, it will have a total capacity of 720 megawatts.

A global trend

Private and state-owned companies are seeking to build these small power plants in about a dozen countries so far, including the U.S. and the U.K.

France, which gets three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear energy, and Canada may soon join the fray.

This global interest in small modular reactors comes as more standard nuclear reactors are being decommissioned than are under construction.

Some advantages

Proponents of these advanced small modular reactors say they will be easier to build and more flexible in terms of where they can be located than the larger kind. The word "modular" refers to how they will be built in factory-like settings, ready for hauling either fully assembled or in easily connected parts by truck, rail or sea.

These reactors can potentially power rural towns, industrial plants, mountainous areas and military bases, as well as urban districts and ports. Small modular reactors may also prove handy for industrial uses.

Small modular reactors will differ from the smaller reactors already deployed because of their new technologies. These advances are intended to make it less likely or even impossible for them to melt down or explode, as happened during Japan's Fukushima disaster.

The power plants where these small reactors will be located will have added protections against sabotage and the theft of radioactive material. For example, they may be equipped with cooling systems that continue working even if no operators are present and all electric power is lost. In many cases, the entire reactor and steam-generating equipment will be below ground to safeguard these facilities during natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunamis that led three Fukushima Daiichi reactors to melt down.

Like renewable energy, nuclear power emits no carbon. And compared to wind and solar power, which are intermittent sources, or hydropower, which is affected by seasonal changes and droughts, it operates all the time and has a much smaller footprint.

As a result, small modular reactors could be paired with renewable sources as a substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants. Yet they will probably have to compete with advanced energy storage systems for that market.

Concerns and costs

Whether these advantages materialize, obviously, remains to be seen once these reactors are deployed. Some experts are skeptical of the industry's promises and expectations.

Although small modular reactors are designed to produce less radioactive waste than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power, the issue of where to safely dispose of nuclear waste remains unresolved.

Small modular reactors face other challenges, some of their own making.

Strong interest in the potential global market has led many companies to propose their own individual reactor designs. In my opinion, there are already too many versions out there. Before long, a shakeout will occur.

And, especially in the U.S., there is currently no clarity regarding the length of time required for licensing new reactor designs lacking any commercial track record – creating a lot of regulatory uncertainty.

It's also unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost. That will probably remain the case for at least the next 10 to 15 years, until a few designs are actually built and operating.

Some experts foresee small modular reactors penciling out at levels that could be higher than for full-sized reactors which generally cost more to build and operate than other options, like natural gas, for the same amount of power. NuScale, however, predicts that its SMRs will be more competitive than that in terms of their cost.

And some observers fear that reactor owners might cut corners to reduce costs, compromising safety or security.

Although their costs are unclear and their advantages relative to other energy choices remain unproven, I believe these small reactors, as non-carbon sources, are needed to help resolve the energy challenges of our time. And the rest of the world seems ready to give them a try with or without the U.S.

Explore further: UAE says its first nuclear reactor complete

Related Stories

UAE says its first nuclear reactor complete

March 26, 2018

The United Arab Emirates said Monday that one of four nuclear reactors at its debut plant has been completed as it moves closer to becoming the first Arab nation to produce atomic power.

South Korea to push ahead with nuclear power plants

October 20, 2017

South Korea on Friday decided to push ahead with the construction of two new nuclear reactors after months of heated debate over whether the country should start weaning itself off atomic energy.

Recommended for you

Security gaps identified in internet protocol IPsec

August 15, 2018

In collaboration with colleagues from Opole University in Poland, researchers at Horst Görtz Institute for IT Security (HGI) at Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB) have demonstrated that the internet protocol IPsec is vulnerable ...

Researchers find flaw in WhatsApp

August 8, 2018

Researchers at Israeli cybersecurity firm said Wednesday they had found a flaw in WhatsApp that could allow hackers to modify and send fake messages in the popular social messaging app.

270 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mark Thomas
4.4 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2018
I believe these small reactors, as non-carbon sources, are needed to help resolve the energy challenges of our time.


I agree. We need nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, wind, solar, hydroelectric and possibly other forms of power generation like biomass. We need it all, and we need it now. What we don't need is more power generation from fossil fuels, especially if it is from the evil Koch Brothers.

https://www.rolli...20140924
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
vastly reduced meltdown risks and greater flexibility in terms of where they can be located, among others.

Any meltdown risk is too much.
And what about the proliferation of waste? Who is going to be responsible for it? Or do we leave these things dotted around the landscape after use and have the taxpayer pick up the tab for indefinite storage (as per usual)?

The location flexibility makes no sense as an argument to me. There is such a thing as a grid.

The power plants where these small reactors will be located will have added protections against sabotage and the theft of radioactive material.

When several hundred or thousand of these are around? How they pull THAT off I want to see. (Not that would-be-evil-doers couldn't just buy a few of those themselves and just get at the stuff that way directly)
Solon
3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2018
"Any meltdown risk is too much."

You worry too much. If there is a core catcher then a meltdown is no big deal.

"And what about the proliferation of waste?"

There is no such thing if it is recycled properly. The 'waste' is worth many times more than the original fuel. The dawning of the Atomic Age should have heralded the beginning of an age of energy surplus and the beginning of the end for the oil/coal barons.
The huge and expensive nuclear power plants are just cash cows for the construction industry, with its ties to political power, and the taxpayer will be paying for decommission and this 'waste' storage for many years. SMRs could be mass produced much more cheaply and set up where ever there is a need, reducing the need for expensive and vulnerable long distance transmission lines to the large, centralised stations.
It's al about corporate profit, not public needs.

greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2018
I see an odd contradiction in this article.
the first ones could be generating power by 2020 in China
unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost...that will probably remain the case for at least the next 10 to 15 years, until a few designs are actually built and operating


The big question for me is cost. Dealing with decommissioning will be interesting if they do ever become a reality. The cost will need to include the total cost of waste disposal, and decommissioning. The nuclear industry does not have a good record in terms of being open and honest. I do wish them luck - and if they can compete price wise with wind and solar - it will be good news for our world.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2018
If there is a core catcher then a meltdown is no big deal.

There is no core catcher. Core catchers must be actively cooled. Guess what happens when one of these things melt down? Any kind of power for active cooling fails, too.

There is no such thing if it is recycled properly.

Because that has been working out oh so swell with the few big reactory we have - so this is going to work spectacularly well with hundreds/thousands of these owned by all kinds of people...Yeah...I can totally see that working...NOT.

Also note that insurance companies won't touch nuclear reactors. Not a single nuclear reactor in the world is insured against environmental damages - as opposed to all other kinds of powerplants...the real 'insurance policy' is - you guessed it - the taxpayer.
Know what a kWh would cost if these things were insured as they should be? A hell of a lot more than it does now - which is already quadrupel of wind and eight times of solar.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
AAP, as you appreciate, as much as we could make good use of a "Mr. Fusion," it hasn't been invented yet. So as a pre-fusion society facing serious global warming, we must weigh the disparate relative risks here. Consider it a lesser of evils choice if you must. It seems to me that Global Warming is likely to kill a lot more people than failure of a modern fission reactor. Besides, what if we never manage to get fusion to work? We will need nuclear fission.

Yes, I love the renewables too, but the fact they are intermittent means we need a gigantic amount of batteries for the entire planet or some other non-carbon emitting power source.
Cusco
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2018
The reason why recycling isn't working is completely political, not technical. It's prohibited by law for reasons that kind of, sort of, maybe, made sense in 1985. The fact that it's still prohibited is absurd. Most of Yucca Mountain would be utterly unnecessary if recycling were allowed.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
Any meltdown risk is too much.


That's like saying "any risk of a car crash is too much, therefore cars shouldn't be allowed".

Nirvana fallacy. Three mile island had a meltdown, Chernobyl had a meltdown. Do you see any difference between the two?

There is no core catcher. Core catchers must be actively cooled. Guess what happens when one of these things melt down? Any kind of power for active cooling fails, too.


The core catchers were added when the reactors were scaled up so big that they couldn't be self-containing in a meltdown accident. Guess what the point of making them smaller is?

Because that has been working out oh so swell with the few big reactory we have


Recycling works pretty well where it is actually allowed. The main problem is that people actively resist it.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2018
That's like saying "any risk of a car crash is too much, therefore cars shouldn't be allowed"
It's not the same. You surely have to agree on the difference between Chernobyl - and a car accident. i think we can engineer nukes to the point that the risk is 'contained.' We have plenty of nuclear subs etc. around - and for me - the engineering is to the point that we can co-exist. Just seems silly to make that analogy.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2018
It's not the same. You surely have to agree on the difference between Chernobyl - and a car accident.


The point flew a mile over your head.

A car crash ranges from a fender bender to a four-lane pileup on fire two miles deep in a tunnel. It would be completely unreasonable to categorically deny cars because there is a risk of a crash.

That was the analogy.
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2018
The point flew a mile over your head.
Not at all - and I still think it is a very poor analogy. Equating a car accident to Chernobyl - shows you have no idea of the scale of Chernobyl. https://www.theat.../559016/

I know I know - that is overly dramatic - but it still helps to get a sense of the scale of the disaster. A 30 Km exclusion zone - 32 years later - and you think it is a good analogy to a car accident.....
Anonym662145
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2018
"It's not the same. You surely have to agree on the difference between Chernobyl - and a car accident."

The problem with this argument is that you assume that all nuclear reactors share similar risk as Chernobyl, when in reality none of the existing reactors on earth share similar risk as this particular reactor. Chernobyl is actually a terrible example to use when comparing nuclear, because this reactor was designed in a very particular way that is actually contradictory to conventional reactor design and nuclear engineering.

The fundamental design flaw in this reactor was that it purposefully operated with very high positive void coefficents, when in most cases you never want to operate a light water reactor with positive void coefficents much less high ones. In fact today most regulatory bodies forbid such designs including the IAEA.

In other words your example just doesn't exist in reality.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jun 08, 2018
Toshiba 4S might be a good bet for smaller rural requirements...
WillieWard
2.8 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2018
Any meltdown risk is too much.
"Even the worst nuclear accidents result in far fewer deaths than the normal operation of fossil fuel power plants."
Carbon-free nuclear energy is the only scalable way to stop Climate Change. Wind and solar are scalable in installed-capacity but a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions everywhere, intermittent renewables are just an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas industries.
"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition and fear of the unknown."
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
Not at all - and I still think it is a very poor analogy. Equating a car accident to Chernobyl - shows you have no idea of the scale of Chernobyl.


That's why I didn't. If you read up, I actually used Three Mile Island AND Chernobyl as the examples from two different ends of the spectrum.

But as per usual, you don't even read the argument before you go railing against it. The absolute magnitude of the Chernobyl accident is totally irrelevant to the point of the analogy - it's just saying "accidents come in different sizes".

The question is not about the risk of the accident, but the risk of the outcome of the accident. AA's argument was saying that no risk of accident is permissible, which is saying "no outcome is tolerable", even if the outcome is nothing but a broken powerplant.

greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2018
As usual you don't read - before railing against something. AA's argument was very clearly not
no risk of accident is permissible


Try reading again. AA said.

Any meltdown risk is too much.


That is a specific statement - regarding the risk of 'meltdown' - not a generalized statement - arguing that
no risk of accident is permissible
Pretty basic distinction there. Of course no one would argue that "no risk of accident of any kind is permissible." And of course the scale of devastation is significant - in evaluating the risk level we are willing to tolerate. And I am not railing against anything - just pointing out that it is not a good analogy - to compare a car accident - to a nuclear meltdown. Of course we know that there are different degrees of nuclear accident. When assessing risk - we look at worst case scenario. Car accidents don't cause 30 km exclusion zones - for 32 years and counting.....
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2018
Anonym
In other words your example just doesn't exist in reality
If you read my posts - you will see that I am an advocate for nuclear power - as long as it can be done cost effectively. I think that renewables are the better bet - due to cost. If we are serious about climate change mitigation - we probably need a 'throw everything we have against the problem approach' - which may include nukes - despite their higher cost. However - the debate is about the scale of risk - and it is stupid to compare the risk of a car accident - to the risk of a 'meltdown.' Pick Chernobyl - or pick Fukushima - or pick a hypothetical - the point remains the same.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2018
As usual you don't read - before railing against something. AA's argument was very clearly not
no risk of accident is permissible


Try reading again. AA said.

Any meltdown risk is too much.


That is a specific statement - regarding the risk of 'meltdown' - not a generalized statement - arguing that
no risk of accident is permissible
Pretty basic distinction there.


Now you're just mincing words. I was assuming we both know what exactly we're referring to when we say "accident" because we can both read what the original argument was.

The same argument applies whether we mean "accident" in a general sense, or "meltdown" in a particular sense, because again, the outcome of a meltdown accident is not necessarily Chernobyl. That's why I pointed out Three Mile Island, which was a meltdown accident, and resulted in pretty much no risk to the surrounding population. It was more or less a radioactive fart in the wind.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
The general problem here is that every (potential) nuclear accident, meltdown or otherwise, is being treated as if it was a potential Chernobyl, which was a real outlier because it was literally built to fail.

Everything about Chernobyl was about as bad as it can be, all the way from an unstable reactor design to building the moderator out of combustible carbon that burned for days spewing radioactive ash in the wind.

The concept of "risk" is automatically assumed to be the worst possible thing, even where it is literally not possible, which is exactly like imagining the worst possible car crash and then arguing that all cars should be banned because there's a risk that cars collide.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2018
Now you're just mincing words
Sure im mincing words - cuz they're important. I can fully appreciate the argument - that the potential outcome of a meltdown - is so catastrophic - we should eliminate the risk completely - which is possible to do if we don't build any nukes. It does not matter if Chernobyl or Fukushima were outliers. The argument stands. I clearly (from my posts) don't subscribe to eliminating the risk. I believe we can reduce it to an acceptable level. But that does not address the argument. A car accident is not analogous to a meltdown - the possible outcomes are orders of magnitude different. Show me any car accident that has led to a 30 Km exclusion zone - and 116,000 people being evacuated.....
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2018
The concept of "risk" is automatically assumed to be the worst possible thing, even where it is literally not possible
If it is 'literally not possible' - then there is no 'risk.'
Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
The concept of "risk" is automatically assumed to be the worst possible thing, even where it is literally not possible
If it is 'literally not possible' - then there is no 'risk.'


Again, you're mincing words. The worst possible outcome is in general, not in particular.

It does not matter if Chernobyl or Fukushima were outliers. The argument stands.


Of course it matters, because it's a false argument. The falsity of the argument is taking the worst possible risk in general, and arguing it's always possible or likely in the particular - which is like saying "all car accidents may be the worst car accident there ever was, so no car should be driven."

And that's patently ridiculous.

Show me any car accident that has led to a 30 Km exclusion zone - and 116,000 people being evacuated.....


That's a completely irrelevant demand. We're not comparing car accidents to nuclear accidents, but car accidents to car accidents, and nuclear to nuclear.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2018
For example, cars in the 50's didn't have seatbelts or folding steering columns, so in a crash the driver would fly against the steering wheel and get impaled by the steering column. That's a bad accident.

Today, cars have folding steering columns, seatbelts, and airbags.

The meltdown argument is basically taking cars from the 50's, pretending that this worst case scenario is still valid and likely to happen, and then saying cars are too dangerous. Well, sure, if you still drive a car from the 50's - it has no bearing on new cars where this problem has already been taken into consideration. You may still get slammed towards the steering wheel, but this time it doesn't kill you.

Analogously, you may still have a nuclear meltdown, but this time it doesn't pollute half the planet because nuclear powerplants aren't built like Cherobyl anymore.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
In other words, the risk of the accident is still there, but the risk of the outcome isn't. That's why mixing up the two is making a false argument.

See what I mean, greenonions?
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
That's why mixing up the two is making a false argument
Well i'm not mixing anything up - or making any false arguments. It seems very simple to me. Making an analogy between a meltdown, and a car crash - is absurd. It is very reasonable to say - we want to eliminate the risk of a meltdown - as the POTENTIAL catastrophe makes it an unacceptable risk - no matter how tiny that risk may be. Thus AA was saying - no matter how small the risk (ie. 1 in 10 trillion) - it is still not acceptable. On the other hand - 1 in 10,000 risk of car accident may be acceptable - because the POTENTIAL outcome from the accident is orders of magnitude smaller (no car accident is going to cause a 30 Km exclusion zone etc. . Pretty simple there Eikka - stop making it harder.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
Well i'm not mixing anything up - or making any false arguments.


Indeed. You just misunderstood the point to begin with.

Making an analogy between a meltdown, and a car crash - is absurd.


And nobody made one. You just misunderstood the point.

It is very reasonable to say - we want to eliminate the risk of a meltdown - as the POTENTIAL catastrophe makes it an unacceptable risk - no matter how tiny that risk may be.


No. That's just the unreasonable thing to say. Completely eliminating the risk of meltdown may not even be possible, and it's completely irrelevant to demand it if the outcomes can be satisfactorily managed.

And there you are again appealing to the POTENTIAL catastrophe, assuming the risk of a meltdown accident inherently means a catastrophe.

On the other hand - 1 in 10,000 risk of car accident may be acceptable - because the POTENTIAL outcome from the accident is orders of magnitude smaller


Oh, we can easily imagine one.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
(no car accident is going to cause a 30 Km exclusion zone etc. . Pretty simple there Eikka - stop making it harder.


But what if there's a pileup of cars where there's a truck full of petrol, another truck full of liquid oxygen, and a third truck full of ammonium fertilizers, and a fourth truck full of some awful dioxides or other chemicals. BOOM. Everyone in a 30 km radius gets poisoned and the land becomes unusable for generations.

It would be an event much like the Bhopal disaster https://en.wikipe...disaster which was the worst industrial accident in the world, that killed and poisoned many more people than Chernobyl ever did. Nearly a million people were affected.

That's a tremendously unlikely possibility, but it MIGHT happen. Since there is no acceptable level of risk to be taken for such an event, we must conclude that automobiles are simply too dangerous and should not be built.

Or, shall we conclude that the argument is silly?
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
A single truck can carry enough poisonous material to destroy a city. Car accidents too can have serious consequences.

http://newsimg.bb..._466.gif

But this is still completely irrelevant, as it was never the argument to compare how bad a car accident is compared to a nuclear meltdown. Just to point out that assuming the worst regardless of the particulars is unreasonable.

That said, I do fear the nearby chemicals factory more than the nuclear plant. Exactly because of Bhopal
greenonions1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2018
Or, shall we conclude that the argument is silly?
You go right ahead.

it was never the argument to compare how bad a car accident is compared to a nuclear meltdown

But that is exactly what you did - when you responded to this
Any meltdown risk is too much


That's like saying "any risk of a car crash is too much, therefore cars shouldn't be allowed


And I keep repeating over and over - that it is not like saying "any risk of a car crash is too much." It is different. The outcome of the event (car crash vs meltdown) - is orders of magnitude different.

BOOM. Everyone in a 30 km radius gets poisoned and the land becomes unusable for generations
And please give us one example where this has happened. I found this - http://abc13.com/...1332062/ 6 people killed, 178 injured, and I bet the highway was back open in 48 hours. Your turn.
Anonym662145
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
"If you read my posts - you will see that I am an advocate for nuclear power - as long as it can be done cost effectively. I think that renewables are the better bet - due to cost."

1. When you are doing these cost comparisons what exactly are you doing? There are a variety of ways to estimate costs such as EROI, LCA, EPP, LCOE etc. each with their own favor. Additionally when you are comparing solar and wind to nuclear you have to add the cost of storage, which many estimates DO NOT DO such as LCOE.

When you take into consideration the amount of units, amount of time, reduction of GHG/yr loss (basically if takes you longer to convert to 100% renewable because you didn't want nuclear support youre going to utilize natural gas options, which extends emission of GHGs per year), net storage demanded for 100% renewable versus 70%-80% renewable 20-30% nuclear studies have shown that in fact the latter option is more cost effective.
Anonym662145
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
"A car accident is not analogous to a meltdown - the possible outcomes are orders of magnitude different. Show me any car accident that has led to a 30 Km exclusion zone - and 116,000 people being evacuated"

2. Just, because one possible outcome has occurred does not mean that this outcome is replicable in all other reactors. That was my original point. Its a poor argument to claim that nuclear has exceptional risk, because Chernobyl occurred and that is one example. However, that specific reactor was designed in such a way that it has variables that are non-existent in reactors today. It is literally ILLEGAL to operate a light water reactor with positive void coefficients in the USA by the NRC.

Therefore it is impossible to place US reactors with any probability of a Chernobyl accident.

gkam
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
They need Eikka at Fukushima and WIPP. He can tell them what they are doing wrong.

But when someone else says "Therefore it is impossible to place US reactors with any probability of a Chernobyl accident.", one wonders where he was when Fukushima melted down THREE reactors!!
Anonym662145
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
"I can fully appreciate the argument - that the potential outcome of a meltdown - is so catastrophic - we should eliminate the risk completely - which is possible to do if we don't build any nukes."

3. Another major issue is that you have been led to believe that a meltdown inherently means major catastrophe. If you look at accident data of Fukushima from supplied reports by the IAEA you will find that the meltdowns occurred prior to the contamination.

A meltdown is simply the event in which solid nuclear fuel melts due to increased heat. Notice how I never said anything about an explosion or massive contamination right? This is because a meltdown does not inherently mean major contamination. It can if the situation is not rectified in a quick enough manner. However, it is interesting to note that the cause of contamination from Fukushima was not directly caused by the meltdown or nuclear reactions.

As pressure and heat built up in the reactor following the meltdown...
Anonym662145
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
... the operators released some radioactive material through venting lines to the reactor chimney. In the mix of materials released from the reactor core included excess hydrogen (which came from chemical reactions of zirconium cladding reacting over time with water coolant). Hydrogen has a tendency of being difficult to contain, an under increased pressure this material leaked from venting lines into the containment building, where it reacted with oxygen causing an exothermic reaction or in other words an explosion releasing larger amounts of radioactive materials.

Notice what is not in this explanation- decay heat, pressure rupture, meltdown etc.
Anonym662145
2.8 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
"When assessing risk - we look at worst case scenario."

Risk assessment is not done in such a way. When you assess risk you take into consideration all existing variables. You don't just assume equal risk because some reactor type halfway around the world has nuclear in its name. You cant assume Chernobyl risk for all reactors, when all reactors are designed extremely different.

You cant assume Fukushima risk for all reactors, because not all reactors have equal or similar risk to earthquakes and tsunamis. What you are doing right now, is similar to what the State of California did to disqualify Diablo Canyon, even though the:

- soil conditions
- seismic risk
- elevation
- reactor type
- structural grade,
- backup coolant systems and
-containment structure

Are all completely different in Diablo Canyon.
Anonym662145
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
"one wonders where he was when Fukushima melted down THREE reactors!!"

Where were you gkam? You are living in a very different world, because in fact Fukushima did not experience similar events as Chernobyl. Yes there was a meltdown and there was a release, but the events that transpired were completely different. Last time I checked Kiev has never been hit by a tsunami in recorded history.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
"Are all completely different in Diablo Canyon.

Do you assume they do not know that? Really??
No Tsunami for PL-1 or Fermi 1, either. Why do you soft-pedal the terrible dangers of nuclear power? We cannot afford the units, the dangers, the cost of having armed guards protecting the nasty waste for 240,000 years!

And your point of different configurations just goes to show that all of the designs are dangerous!!
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
Another major issue is that you have been led to believe that a meltdown inherently means major catastrophe
Not at all - I believe that a meltdown is an event with potentially catastrophic consequences. I believe that our engineering is such that we can reduce the risk of a meltdown to an acceptable level. Plenty of examples of countries that have been running large numbers of nukes for many years - with good safety records. All I am referring to in this discussion - is the false argument - of comparing a meltdown, to a car accident. I am simply saying that I understand the German perspective - of wanting to rid their society of nukes - due to the POTENTIAL of a catastrophic event. It is quite a simple point - and one that Eikka seems determined to just keep obfuscating about.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
anonym
When you are doing these cost comparisons what exactly are you doing?
I am not doing anything. I am listening to the experts. For example - https://explorist...-energy/

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the whole intermittency/storage/integration issue. Willie Ward and other nuke acolytes constantly bring the subject up - and it does not matter how many times you address it - rinse and repeat... As you will see if you read my posts - I agree with you that nukes plus renewables is the best way to go to decarbonize fast. I don't understand it - no one listens to me.... :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
These are field testing of offworld prototypes. There may be testing to failure in order to develop safety protocols and remediation techniques in controlled and accessible environments.

Dont say I didn't warn you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
When you are doing these cost comparisons what exactly are you doing
This has nothing to do with profit or sustainability. It is about developing an essential technology for use in colonizing the solar system.
skystare
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2018
Thorium salt reactors have the clear potential to inexpensively avoid all these safety risks and, as well, produce just 1/20th of 1% of the hot waste.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
"Thorium salt reactors have the clear potential to inexpensively avoid,. . . . "

I have heard those promises for most of my 74 years.
We cannot afford them.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
Notice how CleanTechnica and other anti-nuclear faux-green websites are biased, dishonest and divorced from reality.
Faux-greens:
"Britain's Wind Farms Beat Out Nuclear For First Time Ever" - May 17, 2018
https://cleantech...me-ever/
Reality:
"Wind Drought in Britain Leaves Turbines at a Standstill" - June 5, 2018
https://www.bloom...andstill
"Britain Has Gone Nine Days Without Wind Power"
https://www.bloom...or-weeks
Without natural gas(methane worse than CO₂), and carbon-free nuclear, British people would be freezing in the dark:
https://uploads.d...f16a.jpg
https://uploads.d...8820.jpg
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
Thorium salt reactors have the clear potential to inexpensively avoid all these safety risks and, as well, produce just 1/20th of 1% of the hot waste.

Let's take this from a practicality standpoint. Thorium is still in the prototype stage. The only country that is really optimistic about this is India (with copious thorium reserves that's not surprising) - and they are aiming for 30% electricity from Thorium reactors by 2050.

Now let's let that sink in: The most bullish country on Thorium reactors is aiming for 30% by a time when the whole world could be on wind and solar for 100%.
And those 30% only if everything pans out perfectly (like nuclear never has had any kind of delays, right?)
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
...the whole world could be on wind and solar for 100%...
Some people prefer to believe in their own lies like animals that eat their own feces.
https://uploads.d...8820.jpg
Notice UK / Scotland with almost no wind for almost two weeks. Intermittent renewables are failing miserably at reducing emissions everywhere even after trillions of dollars spent worldwide, e.g.Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc., and have made the electricity prices to go through the roof.
"Electricity prices in wind-heavy Texas to skyrocket this summer" - June 7, 2018
https://www.houst...5766.php
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2018
...nuclear never has had any kind of delays...
"You've heard that old-school enviro org mantra: "Can't build nuclear energy fast enough to affect climate change soon enough" ? Seems China wasn't listening ..."
China Nuclear electricity generation in TWh:
2010 71
2011 83
2012 93
2013 105
2014 124
2015 161
2016 198
2017 233
https://pbs.twimg...wpzl.jpg
https://jmkorhone...uilt.png
https://pbs.twimg...Uh8B.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...mIe4.png
https://actinidea...info.png
http://www.tandfo..._oc.jpeg
https://uploads.d...bfe4.jpg
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
That's their mistake, Willie.

Not ours.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2018
"WWF says we have no alternative to gas!"
"WWF are now only realizing that back up of wind turbines with lithium batteries is horrendously expensive!"
https://pbs.twimg...ShGx.jpg
"Battery storage reqd to convert Germany's 2013 solar generation to baseload: $800 billion!"
http://euanmearns...storage/
https://pbs.twimg...NWgj.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...YSQ0.jpg
"By 2040 the IEA projects that solar panels / wind turbines will supply 3.6% of global energy. Fine. Let's even round it up to 4%. Could we now focus on the 96%???"
https://pbs.twimg...Py1i.jpg
"Coal Plants built/shut poor data - better focus MW built"
"Retired inefficient coal plants by MW worldwide 2006-2017 at Jan 2018 =239,019MW"
"New high efficiency larger capacity coal plants built same period =996,959MW"
"Shows 75% increase new Coal Plant MW"
https://endcoal.o...odology/
Anonym662145
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
+gkam "No Tsunami for PL-1 or Fermi 1, either. Why do you soft-pedal the terrible dangers of nuclear power?"

1. Fermi 1 suffered a partial meltdown that resulted in no excessive radioactive release. How did you possibly think this would be comparable to a Level 7 accident like Fukushima?

2. There are risks of nuclear power, but first we have to gain a basic understanding of nuclear physics and materials to understand these risks. Unfortunately people are too busy freaking out about wastes with significant decay rates, even though this would indicate low radioactivity. What this tells me is that a lot of people do not understand the basics of nuclear physics.

Anonym662145
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2018
+gkam "We cannot afford the units, the dangers, the cost of having armed guards protecting the nasty waste for 240,000 years!"

Ok then how about you don't have armed guards... The largest disincentive for stealing plutonium waste from nuclear reactors is not the armed security. Here are some key reasons this doesn't occur:

1. You either have to somehow remove fuel rods from a pool that is 40ft in depth or remove dry fuel casks. Either way the fuel rods can be in excess of 10' and weigh over a ton. Typically they are placed with a crane in a fuel pool. Do you know how to operate this equipment?

2. To steal the material you have to come in direct contact with deadly amounts of radiation if you are stealing waste. Even if you managed to obtain the material with nobody noticing you would likely be dead within a couple of days.

Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
"We cannot afford the units, the dangers, the cost of having armed guards protecting the nasty waste for 240,000 years!"

3. Probably the most interesting problem- If you want Plutonium 239 specifically its going to be quite difficult and take a very long time. Nuclear waste is not stored in crates by single isotopes. Nuclear waste is made up of hundreds of different isotopes. In order to access the specific plutonium 239 you are referring to would require a reprocessing facility.

So now not only do you have to somehow break into a facility that is designed to not let things in, and steal storage devices that are heavier than person or team can lift, and would also most likely kill you, but now you also have to somehow break into a federal military facility with your stolen radioactive waste and miraculously understand how to operate the extremely complex machinery. Oh and btw you would probably be dead long before the reprocessing finished.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
You keep on mentioning how the nasty stuff kills. What kind of society will we have in a thousand years? You have no idea of the situations these stupefyingly-deadly materials will be in two thousand years, or even fifty. Why are we doing this to every human being who follows us?
Have we no sense, no Humanity?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2018
"WWF says we have no alternative to gas!"
"WWF are now only realizing that back up of wind turbines with lithium batteries is horrendously expensive!"
https://pbs.twimg...ShGx.jpg


Oh jeez, we have another tosser who wants us to do.....what, exactly, tosser?
Far too many f***wits on this place. Seriously. None of whom appear to understand science. Eh,Willie, you eejit?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2018
"WWF says we have no alternative to gas!"
Sorry if reality hurts you.
"13.6% of world energy comes from renewable sources, the vast majority—72.8%—is just people in developing countries burning wood, charcoal, and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."
https://nationale...-energy/

Unlike Germany, China is on the right way in the fight against Climate Change.
"China's...Solar...Cut Expected Capacity by 20 Gigawatts" - June 06, 2018
https://www.green...igawatts
"China is ordering more Russian reactors - starting a new nuclear powerplant at Xudaobao and developing Tianwan with reactors 7 & 8, also support for China's nuclear reactor for the moon"-Jun 8
http://www.world-...802.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2018
Far too many f***wits on this place. Seriously. None of whom appear to understand science
Science is mostly about looking stuff up. Willie is pretty good at looking stuff up.

You look anything up lately jd? Or you just prefer throwing shitbombs around as if it's a valid way to make a point?
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2018
"Science is mostly about looking stuff up. "

No, science is about UNDERSTANDING what you "look up".

It is about assessing the validity of what you "look up".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2018
"Science is mostly about looking stuff up. "

No, science is about UNDERSTANDING what you "look up".

It is about assessing the validity of what you "look up".
Well in georgies case, science is about MAKING stuff up.

Isnt that right georgie?
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
Some people prefer to believe in their own lies like animals that eat their own feces
That comment about sums up the nature of Willie Ward's contribution. Yes Otto - Willie is good at looking things up. He looks to Breitbart, the Daily Mail, and other notably dependable sources of information. I think gkam is correct - in pointing out the importance of understanding information - as being more important than just producing information. Also notice the use of this term
like animals that eat their own feces
So you couple the interesting trend of looking at only one side of an issue in order to support your religious like bias, along with the need to use that kind of hate - and you don't really get a very intelligent conversation - just a need to scream as loud as you can...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
...in order to support your religious like bias...
"German energy minister attacks EU renewable energy target as "unachievable" & says even with high cost of €25 billion/year, Germany will only get 15% of its overall energy from renewables by 2030" - Jun 12, 2018
https://www.eurac...bitions/
...looking at only one side...
...kind of hate...
NRDC is joining the "Light side of the Force" embracing carbon-free nuclear energy in order to really protect the environment, birds and bats, natural landscapes and wildlife habits, and to definitively stop the Climate Change.
"NRDC celebrating that AZ can achieve a 50% renewables standard without closing its nuclear power plant, which seems at odds with their claim that intermittent wind/solar is incompatible with Diablo Canyon in CA…but, like, inconsistent in a good way."
https://www.nrdc....n-50-rps
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
like animals that eat their own feces
"Greenies get quite upset when you tell them that renewables are unreliable, environmentally destructive, stupidly expensive, intermittent, and pointless"
https://pbs.twimg...WrDQ.jpg
"The entire renewables industry is an act of faith. The ONLY reason it can survive is through subsidies. And those subsidies can ONLY continue if renewables true believers can persuade enough gullible people to accept being fleeced"
https://pbs.twimg...QYZp.jpg
Nuclear is expensive and wind/solar is cheap and replaces fossil fuels, they say, and could power the whole world.
"France gets >75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. One of the cleanest grids in the world. €0.18/kWh Germany has windmills and coal. €0.30/kWh"
https://www.stati...-france/
https://uploads.d...8820.jpg
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
From Willies article
Luxembourg and Spain, which spoke before Germany at the Council meeting, both supported the European Parliament's call for higher targets on renewables and energy efficiency, backing a 35% objective for both. The Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, Italy and Portugal were also among those calling for higher targets on renewables and energy efficiency than those currently on the table
So you see the cherry picking.

The bigger point for me - is that when you resort to name calling like this
like animals that eat their own feces
- you show the world that you are nothing more than an uninformed bully.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
Greenies get quite upset when you tell them that renewables are unreliable, environmentally destructive, stupidly expensive, intermittent, and pointless
Of course people get upset when you lie to them. People like myself are pretty passionate about progress, and creating a better world - and it is very distressing to see how much hate, and dishonesty there is from the religious folks on the right. The world is changing fast - and we see evidence of the transition to a better energy system - on a daily basis. Here is an example from today - https://renewecon...n-27507/

So what do you expect - when you lie - and hurl horrible insults at people - instead of having an informed understanding of a highly complex subject?
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2018
gkam "You keep on mentioning how the nasty stuff kills. What kind of society will we have in a thousand years? You have no idea of the situations these stupefyingly-deadly materials will be in two thousand years, or even fifty. Why are we doing this to every human being who follows us?
Have we no sense, no Humanity?"

Yes I said that fuel rods contain massive amounts of radioactivity, however you are not understanding the difference of context. Fuel rods are massively radioactive, because they contain a lot of material and significant amount of highly radioactive isotopes- that is isotopes with low decay rates- no the isotopes that last for thousands of years. The video below may help you understand how the radioactivity of a fuel rod changes over time in relation to the high volume of radioactive waste that exists within it.
https://www.youtu...p;t=808s

What I encourage you to do is spend some quality time understanding radioactivity.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2018
+greenonions1 "The world is changing fast - and we see evidence of the transition to a better energy system - on a daily basis. So what do you expect - when you lie - and hurl horrible insults at people - instead of having an informed understanding of a highly complex subject?"

The feeling you have when people make uninformed discussions about renewables is the same feeling that multiple people on this thread have about those who make uniformed comments about nuclear. I would extend this feeling to also include renewable supporters who do not truly understand the scale of transition they are contemplating.

Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2018
+greenoinions In your article the author claims "This past week has seen several landmark developments and announcements that signal that the pace of the energy transition is gathering speed, with huge implications across the board for consumers (mostly good) and incumbent utilities (mostly not so good)."

Yet, multiple studies have shown that our current transition is not even remotely fast enough...

https://www.techn...-system/

http://www.csap.c...essment/

https://onlinelib.../wcc.324

https://www.ipcc....kers.pdf

Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2018
+greenonions Furthermore as much as you feel disdaign for those who are not swayed by the theory of full renewability there are multiple studies which find that this model is not cost competitive, logistically competitive or practical to pursue for many countries.

https://www.techn...-energy/

http://pubs.rsc.o...Abstract

https://www.scien...13006291

I can provide more sources if you would like, but while I encourage you to discover more scientific sources it should be noted that many of these come from published papers or more complex articles.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
Anonym
I would extend this feeling to also include renewable supporters who do not truly understand the scale of transition they are contemplating
I agree with you. I think I have a decent understanding of the scale of the systems - and suspect we agree that the transition is not happening nearly fast enough. I was at a meeting today of climate specialists - who run projections on U.S. temps - based on different emissions scenarios. The higher emissions scenarios do not look good for states like mine (Oklahoma) by mid century. If I could flip a switch - I would initiate a pedal to the metal program - encompassing every low carbon source we can get our hands on. The cost would be high... Yes anonym I have done a lot of internet reading on the studies regarding the feasibility of renewables. There are other studies that find 100% renewables feasible. Much depends on the speed of transition. My disdain is towards liars like Willie - who pollute the conversation.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2018
Anonym - one other quick point. If you follow the situation with renewables - you know that the cost of power from wind and solar continues to fall. We are now consistently looking at around 3 cents Kwh for utility scale projects - some even around 2 cents - https://renewecon...r-95208/

Obviously that graph has to flatten out pretty soon - but the industry tells us it should keep going for a while. Hinkley Point - which is a project of EDF (probably the most experienced nuclear company in the world) - has a strike point of 12 cents Kwh - and if built - would not come on line until 2025 or later. So if we want to talk about cost - it would surely seem that we could build a lot of storage and transmission for that 9 cents kwh difference. A lot of the research does seem to me by people who are setting out to prove a point - and does not take in to consideration the realities of the rapid drop in the cost of solar.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
"What I encourage you to do is spend some quality time understanding radioactivity. "

I understand the changes in fuel rod composition as they burn their Uranium, the nasty actinides and long-term killers. I know Unit Three at Fukushima was burning MOX, and we probably had a low grade nuclear explosion.

I helped do studies on GE Mark I & II BWR Safety Relief Valves and their pressure spike problems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
I helped do studies on GE Mark I & II BWR Safety Relief Valves and their pressure spike problems
Wasnt that another one of those 10-15 jobs you lost because of incompetence?

If you hadn't lied yourself into all those jobs you weren't qualified to do, perhaps you could have found some good long-term employment, and your wife wouldn't have to be paying for all that EV/PV crap you dont need.

But then getting those jobs was far more important than doing them eh? Not lying is a choice that psychopaths rarely make.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
The Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, Italy and Portugal were also among those calling for higher targets on renewables...
It's quite simple: more intermittent renewables = more coal/oil/gas and less carbon-free nuclear energy, a good deal for the fossil fuel lobbyists travestied as environmentalists.
we see evidence of the transition to a better energy system
According to eco-nuts: coal/oil/gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables is a better energy system.
...the cost of power from wind and solar continues to fall...3 cents
They say "wind and solar ... 3 cents Kwh ... 2 cents" but never say that "batteries not included".
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/
"Battery storage reqd to convert Germany's 2013 solar generation to baseload: $800 billion!"
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
Claiming solar/wind is cheap, hiding the fact "batteries not included", it's the same as selling an electric car cheaper than a conventional one, without batteries, where the batteries is one of most expensive components of the car, and dishonestly not informing the innocent buyer.
"New York's Clean Energy Programs: The High Cost of Symbolic Environmentalism"
"...would require installing at least 200,000 MW of battery storage to compensate for wind and solar's inherent intermittency."
https://www.manha...565.html
"Energy storage ... increases carbon emissions."
https://www.vox.c...missions

"Even Vesta's Offshore Wind Division Founding Chairman compares to offshore wind turbines to an "old crappy car"."
https://pbs.twimg...D9UO.jpg
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2018
it's the same as selling an electric car cheaper than a conventional one, without batteries
No it is not. We could give you many examples of how renewables are now beating out conventional generation - even with storage. Here is just one- https://renewecon...n-27507/
Corporate Australia... turning to solar, and now storage, to slash their bills


Why don't you just stick to using horrible insults calling people who know more than you "animals who eat their own feces" - seems you know more about that kind of subject.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
Outgrow your petty vandalism, otto.

Your secret inadequacy is no longer news.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
GE is looking at selling it's gas turbine unit - due to
the whole industry has significantly been underestimating the rise of renewable energy
The facts -
renewables (excluding large hydro) accounted for 157 gigawatts of electricity capacity additions last year...The global gas power market actually lost 12 gigawatts of net capacity
The renewables train keeps building steam - hopefully it will pick up speed...

From - https://www.green....MztplRE
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
No it is not. We could give you many examples of how renewables are now beating out conventional generation - even with storage. Here is just one- https://renewecon...n-27507/
CleanTechnica and RenewEconomy are not reliable sources.
renewables (excluding large hydro) accounted for 157 gigawatts of electricity capacity additions last year
capacity ≠ production
"Carbon Emissions Rose in 2017 Despite Record Solar & Wind -- More Proof They Can't Save The Climate" - Jun 13, 2018
https://www.forbe...climate/
"According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016..." while carbon emissions continue to climb?!?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
Oh, my, . . another nice day, another bunch of kWh sent into the line for our neighbors to use. We will take them back out tonight for power to run the house and charge two electric vehicles.
How much do you spend in gasoline each year? Oil changes? Tune-ups? Transmission work? Emissions systems? Gassing up?

In my world, Willie, we do not have to do any of that.

It is called the future. We know it as California.

Wanna buy our last two nukes?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Oh, my, . . another nice day, another bunch of kWh sent into the line for our neighbors to use. We will take them back out tonight for power to run the house and charge two electric vehicles...
In my world ... It is called the future. We know it as California.
It's called sociopathy, where sociopaths lie to themselves, believe in their own lies, like animals that eat their own excrement.
Reality:
"Recent nuclear plant closures in places ranging from Germany and Japan to Vermont and California demonstrate that when nuclear plants close, their electrical output is replaced almost entirely by electricity from fossil fuels, not renewables like solar and wind."
https://www.forbe...ments/3/
"California ... greenhouse emissions creeping up"
https://grist.org...ping-up/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
"The overall share of fossil fuels in global energy demand in 2017 remained at 81%, a level that has remained stable for more than three decades despite strong growth in renewables."
"The idea that wind and solar power can power advanced civilizations is ludicrious - but people have been making the claim for decades now. This is not new. It failed then and it will fail now, for the same reasons: storage is an insurmountable obstacle"

Greenies are acting as sociopaths:
"groups like the Sierra Club use their millions to continue peddling the myth that the United States can run its entire economy solely on solar and wind energy, despite numerous analyses that have demolished that notion. Even worse, Sierra Clubbers are ignoring the landscape- and seascape-destroying energy sprawl — plus the huge number of bird and bat kills — that would accompany an attempt to rely on renewables alone"
https://nypost.co...r-power/
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2018
We have a couple of Westinghouse PWR's for sale here, Willie.
How many do you want?
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
Willie
despite numerous analyses that have demolished that notion
And plenty of analysis that says the opposite - so it depends if you are a glass half empty kind of guy - who goes around calling people who disagree with him "animals who eat their own feces" - cuz you know - he doesn't know what he is talking about - so has to resort to being horrible, and hateful.

http://www.iflsci...gy-2050/
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Willlie
public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016..." while carbon emissions continue to climb
And how many trillion have we spent on nuclear power? You have to include the cost of Chernobyl, Fukushima, all the other nuclear accidents, etc. etc. etc. And now renewables produce more electricity than nukes - so your argument has to also be applied to nukes? We are in early days - getting set to really reap the rewards of our investment in renewables. Hinkley Point is the poster child for Nukes = 12 cents a Kwh - solar around 2 cents Kwh and falling. Wow - that is hard math to do.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
...plenty of analysis that says the opposite...
All you have is theoretical analysis/studies, nothing in practice, even in small scale.
Hinkley Point...
...solar around 2 cents Kwh and falling...
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."

Unlike wind/solar, carbon-free nuclear has really decarbonized the grids.
"To put this roughly $2 trillion in investment in solar and wind during the past 10 years in perspective, it represents an amount of similar magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion."
https://www.forbe...climate/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
And now renewables produce more electricity than nukes...
Indeed, renewable cultists believe in their own lies like beasts that eat their own excrement.
Reality:
"13.6% of world energy comes from renewable sources, the vast majority—72.8%—is just people in developing countries burning wood, charcoal, and dung for energy. That's right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power."
https://nationale...-energy/

"By 2040 the IEA projects that solar panels / wind turbines will supply 3.6% of global energy. Fine. Let's even round it up to 4%. Could we now focus on the 96%??? Thanks!"
"The IEA estimates we'll need to pay $3 trillion over the next 25 years to support uncompetitive solar and wind."
"The IEA says that the world has already developed ~1/2 of its hydroelectric potential. And since that only services ~6% of total CURRENT energy demand"
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2018
Willie
renewable cultists believe in their own lies like beasts that eat their own excrement.
Reality
No willie - we know facts. https://blogs.stl...ce-2017/

So as you can see - you don't know facts. My statement was
renewables produce more electricity than nukes...
And you see from the chart - renewables do indeed produce more ELECTRICITY than nukes.

Could we now focus on the 96%???
Yes let's - what'ss your plan for ships, planes, trucks, cars, gas heat, industrial heat etc?

Smart people like Musk are building electric cars/trucks, solar panels and storage technologies. What are you doing - besides calling people who "animals who eat their own feces?" You are a sorry excuse for a shill for one industry Willie. Show us a cost curve on nukes for the past 50 years Willie. I'll show 40 years of solar https://commons.w...1977.svg
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
...we know facts...
Trillions of dollars spent over decades and they say: "Rome Wasn't Built In A Day".
Notice the progress:
"In 1998, coal represented 38% of global power generation. In 2017, it represented ... 38% of global power generation."
https://www.vox.c...e-change
Smart people like Musk are building electric cars/trucks, solar panels and storage technologies.
Elon Musk: The Savior.
http://i0.kym-cdn.../ec9.png
I'll show 40 years of solar...
"batteries not included"
Claiming solar/wind is cheap, hiding the fact "batteries not included", it's the same as selling an electric car cheaper than a conventional one, without batteries, where the batteries is one of most expensive components of the car, and dishonestly not informing the innocent buyer.
https://pbs.twimg...63Yg.jpg
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Nuclear - Clean, Green and Mean
This puts countries like Germany in a pickle as one of the most advanced countries on the panet, while there are mobile nuclear reactors in far flung remote countries far from civilisation supplying them with clean green nuclear power, Germany is belching out dirty thick coal smoke and fumy pollutants.
Germany is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century or it will be a country looking out at countries like Greenland where the Eskimos will be warming their toes on unlimited nuclear power with their mobile nuclear generators charging their electric snowmobiles and not hint of fossil fuel in site
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2018
Trillions of dollars spent over decades and they say: "Rome Wasn't Built In A Day
Trillions of dollars have also been spent on nukes - and renewables now generate more electricity than nukes.

batteries not included
Plenty of examples of renewables plus storage now being cost competitive. Here is just one -https://www.fool....sto.aspx
This increases the cost to 8.2 cents per kWh for all solar projects, which is still competitive with coal and natural gas turbines.


So come on potty mouth - show us the cost curve on nukes. The cost curve on wind and solar is still going down. Come on Willie - Otto says you are good at looking things up....
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2018
+greenonions1 "There are other studies that find 100% renewables feasible"
Would you be so kind as to include them in your comments. I would also request that these studies do not call for the implementation of CCS, HEVE, CHP or other gas storage as this would require an increase in natural gas production, which is one the major reasons that I believe nuclear would be better suited for reducing GHGs in conjunction with renewables.

"Much depends on the speed of transition"
Ok, but keep in mind that the long this transition takes the more CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere, which can elevate the climate risk exponentially over time leading to a greater economic cost. There is a reason why my nuclear argument is not including nuclear fusion...

Anonym662145
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
"We are now consistently looking at around 3 cents Kwh for utility scale projects - some even around 2 cents"
When your article makes statements like:

"The document details the specs of the six projects – which amount to a combined total of 1001MW, as you can see in the table below – all of which come in under $30/MWh over 25 year contracts."

- this is not a study about the average utility price for solar. The reason for my skepticism is due to the fact that the Lazard LCOE perspective study has photovoltaic solar at a low range of $43/MWh or $.043 per KWh. Now I have issues with the study, but at least it looks at more than a handful of solar projects to base the average utility price.

https://www.lazar...-110.pdf

My largest issue with the study and a major issue for most solar analysis in general is that it does not consider the cost of storage and replacement for intermittency.

Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2018
+greenonions1 "Hinkley Point - which is a project of EDF (probably the most experienced nuclear company in the world) - has a strike point of 12 cents Kwh"
Im not sure why you would ever think that Hinkley Plant is the pinnacle of nuclear technology or the base for new nuclear, when it is by far the most expensive nuclear plant under construction to date, and Canada is currently beginning permits for a Gen IV IMSR reactor with significantly more advanced technology.

Also how is EDF the most experienced, when they are not the oldest, nor have any commitments to GIF reactors?

In fact I find it rather odd you continue to only use this plant as an example for nuclear costs, when there is a plethora of studies which indicate the average cost for nuclear and several examples for Gen III reactors with a much lower cost. It almost seems as if you're purposefully using this specific reactor to misrepresent the cost of nuclear and persuade others to support your own opinion.
Anonym662145
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
+gkam "I helped do studies on GE Mark I & II BWR Safety Relief Valves and their pressure spike problems."
I have significant doubts about the validity of this statement, considering the fact that in this same comment you claimed that Fukushima suffered a low grade nuclear explosion.

Nuclear explosions cannot occur at a nuclear reactor. It is literally impossible by the laws of physics to experience such a phenomena at a reactor. I highly doubt ANYONE would allow someone with a significant lack of understand atomic physics to help design safety relief valves for a nuclear reactor.

How do you fathom this would even occur? The explosion happened AFTER the reactor was shutdown. When a nuclear reactor is shutdown the control rods absorb excess neutrons necessary to split fissile materials. If there are no neutrons to bombard the fissile material, how on earth did a nuclear reaction take place, and how did the reaction not effect the reactor core where the material is held?
Anonym662145
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
+greenonions1 You really need to start using some more credible sources if you want me to actually consider your information to be valid.

"Show us a cost curve on nukes for the past 50 years Willie. I'll show 40 years of solar" apparently based on: https://commons.w...1977.svg

Now I actually read the sources you provide unlike most people, which would be good, except that so far your sources have presented a lot of conflicting and problematic information. If you dive a bit deeper into your source the chart does use information from BNEF, but only from 1977 to 2013. The 2015 $.30/KWh cost comes from:

"based on average sales price of $0.30/W on 29 April 2015 from EnergyTrend.com"

First of all you don't measure cost per watt, and this estimate actually makes it appear that solar is extremely expensive. $.03/W is $3.00/KWh or 25 times as much as Hinkley. Secondly this is a price from a single day, not an average/yr.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
"considering the fact that in this same comment you claimed that Fukushima suffered a low grade nuclear explosion."

I did not say that, you inferred it. Second, we MAY have had secondary nuclear criticality when the MOX was compressed by the hydrogen explosion. This is not my supposition but by one in the business. Look at the differences in the explosions between Units 1 and 3.

They also found traces of Cobalt 60 on one of the other unaffected reactors. That is a conversion product from Iron with a high Neutron flux. We had what looked to be several criticalities since, determined from the products of fission.

If you want to go into detail, let's do it.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
"When a nuclear reactor is shutdown the control rods absorb excess neutrons necessary to split fissile materials."

Read that in a book? Go look at Fukushima, which is no book, but the real thing.

Scramming a reactor does not end the process, it reduces it. And the remaining heat is still there in those thousand-ton cores. After TMI III melted down, you could see the 5 Megawatts of decay heat from the rubble still making steam in one cooling tower for months.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
"My largest issue with the study and a major issue for most solar analysis in general is that it does not consider the cost of storage and replacement for intermittency."

Then why are the utilities not worried about it? You are looking for excuses. And there are none now. Wind plus storage is around 4 cents/kWh in the latest contracts.

Beat that with gas or coal, or (snicker), nukes.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
renewables now generate more electricity than nukes
"half of the renewables in the graph is biomass, which produces more CO2/kWh than coal!" "wood, charcoal, and dung" "feces is a more important energy source than wind power"
https://pbs.twimg...32nY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...mazm.jpg
Plenty of examples of renewables plus storage now being cost competitive...
...Wind plus storage is around 4 cents/kWh...
Cite a practical example, a small city/island 100% powered by solar/wind+battery/storage.

Explain to future generations, "It was good for the economy."
Wind/solar farms have decarbonized almost nothing and most of them are already in the end of their lifetime.
https://pbs.twimg...oNV0.jpg
"Germany must prepare for "wind turbine decommissioning wave""
https://www.clean...ing-wave
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
...Fukushima ... TMI III melted down...
Notice: Fukushima and Three Mile Island have resulted in zero deaths from radiation exposure, while air pollution from fossil fuels(backup for intermittent renewables) kills millions of people every year. Nuclear is the safest per unit of energy produced even including Chernobyl worst-case scenario. It has caused fewer fatalities and less ecological impacts than wind and solar.
http://cdn.ebaums...deat.jpg

Carbon-free nuclear energy is so superior in all respects, and intermittent renewables are so inferior, that renewable cultists have no option except to use scare tactics, which ends favoring even more coal/oil/gas because wind/solar are a joke, a scam, a fraud, just decorative facades for the fossil fuel industry, unable to replace fossil fuels even in small scale.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Willie is left talking to himself.
Anonym662145
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
+gkam "I did not say that you inferred it." Really? So your delusional profile didn't actually just type: "I know Unit Three at Fukushima was burning MOX, and we probably had a low grade nuclear explosion."? Really hard to disprove, when I can just quote your comments...

"Look at the differences in the explosions". Well considering the fact that the plant is even there I can safely say that no nuclear explosion occurred. It takes just 2kg of Pu-239 to make a significant nuclear weapon, which would have annihilated the entire plant and the nearby community. When I say annihilate, I mean wiped off the face of the planet. The fuel in these reactors contained enough plutonium for multiple nuclear bombs, yet the explosions seen are not even remotely similar to that of a nuclear explosion.

How about you explain how you possibly think a nuclear explosion occurred in a nuclear reactor?
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
+gkam "They also found traces of Cobalt 60 on one of the other unaffected reactors. That is a conversion product from Iron with a high Neutron flux. We had what looked to be several criticalities since, determined from the products of fission."

Ok and you concluded that this meant Cobalt 60 had to come from a nuclear explosion? How about the more likely choice that Cobalt 59 experiences neutron absorption during normal operation of a nuclear reactor and thus transmutes into Cobalt 60 in small amounts.
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
+gkam "Read that in a book? Go look at Fukushima, which is no book, but the real thing."
So let me get this straight. You think that atomic physics nor nuclear engineering was used for constructing Fukushima? What I described is the necessary function to facilitate and reduce nuclear reactions in literally every reactor on the planet today. This is not debateable, its a fact of the design of a reactor.

"And the remaining heat is still there in those thousand-ton cores"
Just because you have decay heat does not mean that fission reactions are occurring. In order to have fission you have ensure that fissile material is split by neutrons. Decay heat is simply the energy released from the decay of radioactive isotopes. These decays do not necessarily indicate the release of independent neutrons.
Next time actually read a book on atomic physics....
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
Inserting the control rods does not stop all fission.
Babble away, but you are shooting at the wrong person. I relayed the views of nuclear professionals, not mine - I was not there taking measurements.

The issue of Unit Three effects came from nuclear professionals, and their report said the Cobalt was on the outside surface of the reactor containment facing Unit Three.

Listen, Toots, I know how reactors and powerplants work. I know the differences between RBMK, PWR, BWR, liquid metal and gas-cooled reactors and the weaknesses of each. I understand the problem with the actinides produced in reactors and our inability to even store them safely. Save the high-school physics lesson.

We had Plutonium in Unit Three and we got a huge Neutron flux. From where did it come?
What happened to the robots sent into the destroyed containments?

So many questions, . . .
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
It will take at least 40 years to "clean up" Fukushima. That is TWO GENERATIONS of their best scientists, engineers, managers and workers. TWO! Just to "clean up" a mess, which means moving it to somewhere else, to contaminate that place, too.

We cannot afford another nuclear plant.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
"Decay heat is simply the energy released from the decay of radioactive isotopes. These decays do not necessarily indicate the release of independent neutrons."

Oh my, . . once again, . . . listen to your own advice and look up the products of Uranium decay and the Neutrons emitted.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
+gkam "The issue of Unit Three effects came from nuclear professionals, and their report said the Cobalt was on the outside surface of the reactor containment facing Unit Three"
I would love to see the exact studies where these "nuclear professionals" actually claim that a nuclear explosion occurred in Boiling Water Reactor. Honestly they should get the Nobel Prize for physics, because they would literally be rewriting the laws of nuclear science.

You claim that your argument is valid and that your information is credible, yet this is now the second time you have refused to explicitly explain how this would possibly occur.
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2018
+gkam "Oh my, . . once again, . . . listen to your own advice and look up the products of Uranium decay and the Neutrons emitted."

You're really not helping yourself. You honestly think that nuclear fission reactions came from the decay of uranium? You do realize the decay rate for Uranium 235 is over 700 million years and Uranium 238's is over 4 billion years. Do you have any idea how slow of a decay that is, when you need the exact polar opposite continuously in less than a second to create runaway chain reaction necessary for a nuclear explosion?

Furthermore, you clearly did not pick up on "independent neutrons". Uranium experiences alpha decay, which is NOT just neutrons, in fact its two protons and two neutrons combined or a helium nucleus. You can't split a Uranium atom with alpha decay.

gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
"I would love to see the exact studies where these "nuclear professionals" actually claim that a nuclear explosion occurred in Boiling Water Reactor."

There was no longer a boiling water reactor, but an incandescent pit of seething radioactivity and molten remains of fuel rods and core supports. They think the hydrogen explosions compressed the mass and created a small criticality which blew it up.

I suggest you look into the design of nuclear weapons (such as the W-87), and the use of their components such as Neutron reflectors and tampers and Krytrons to achieve and continue fission which drives the fusion which drive the fission. Without exacting precision the fission blows itself out by separating the components.

The shock wave of the H2 explosion did it.

They had several other small criticalities in the days after the explosion, as detected by Neutron flux and vented gases.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
It will take at least 40 years to "clean up" Fukushima.
"Fukushima Diaries The picture painted by anti-#nuclear fear mongers does not match reality. Visit Fukushima with these three witnesses."
https://www.youtu...l_MaRngI
https://www.youtu...gLGA5TpM
"What happened to the radiation that was supposed to last thousands of years in Hiroshima (1945)?" It is equal to natural background level. Japan subjected to Fukushima, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, breaks record for longevity.
https://www.quora...Hardwick
"World's Most Exotic Tourism Destination? Chernobyl"
https://www.youtu...5fjy3jCI
https://www.never...0_n.jpeg

"In truth, nuclear power is the best energy source, in all respects. That's why greens are forced to use lies to fight nuclear power."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2018
Anonym
In fact I find it rather odd you continue to only use this plant as an example for nuclear costs
Because it is a real world example - that gives us access to real world numbers. If you can show us other contracts that have different numbers - please provide links. I am talking new build.

First of all you don't measure cost per watt
Yes you do. When looking at the drop in cost of solar panels - it is very common to talk cost per watt (total cost of panel - divided by rated wattage). If you have a problem with my source - please feel free to supply your own link to the cost curve of solar panels over the past 40 years. I think you will find that it will support the notion that the costs have dropped dramatically.

I am waiting for potty mouth to supply a cost curve on nukes. Perhaps you could help him out.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2018
Anonym
My largest issue with the study and a major issue for most solar analysis in general is that it does not consider the cost of storage and replacement for intermittency
We know that anonym - you guys don't have to keep repeating the same information - when it has been acknowledged. We know renewables are intermittent. You can buy a lot of storage for the difference between 3 cents and 12 cents. Intermittency is being dealt with in many ways. Prices continue to fall - and all indications are that they will continue.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
Prices continue to fall...
Prices continue to fall and emissions continue to rise as well electricity prices.
Undoubtedly wind/solar are scalable in installed-capacity but a trillions-dollar fiasco in the fight against Climate Change. Carbon-free nuclear energy is the only way.
"Carbon emissions are rising and we're closing #cleanenergy #nuclear plants?"
https://www.axios...bf5.html
"TOTAL FAILURE of the climate crusade: Coal power has the same energy share it had 20 years ago" - June 17, 2018
https://wattsupwi...ars-ago/
"France proved in the 1970s that you can go full nuclear without ruining your economy."
https://en.wikipe...n_France
"How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden"
http://www.tandfo....1145908
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2018
renewables now generate more electricity than nukes
"The world is mostly run on fossil fuels (81%). Nuclear makes up 5%, with 14% from renewables. Solar panels and wind turbines contribute 0.8%."
"When you hear 14% renewables ... The biggest contributor is humanity's oldest fuel: wood."
"4.91% is known as biomass as we also burn food (ethanol) and energy forest (trees or woody shrubs) in the rich world"
"The other main contributor of renewables is 2.5% hydropower."
"The last 1.6% comes mostly from geothermal energy (0.57%) and wind turbines (0.61%) along with solar heaters in China, tidal power etc. (0.26%) and solar panels (0.19%)."
https://climatech...ewables/

"Contrary to the weight of news stories on how solar and wind is taking over the world, solar panels and wind turbines really make up a very small part of the global energy mix."
Trillions of dollars, destruction of wildlife habitats, for nothing.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2018
Prices continue to fall and emissions continue to rise as well electricity prices
Emissions are falling in the electricity sector - https://www.vox.c...ctricity

Keep banging your head against the same brick wall potty mouth. Where is that cost curve on nukes - we want to compare to wind and solar...
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
Emissions are falling in the electricity sector - https://www.vox.c...ctricity
From your article: "...coupled with coal being steadily replaced by natural gas and renewables, has meant its emissions are declining..." "...at least half the work of decarbonization has been done by natural gas..."
Clearly intermittent renewables are just providing "greenwashing" for natural gas(methane: worse than CO₂).
"EIA: U.S. Carbon Emissions Fall Again in 2017, 'Mainly' Because of Natural Gas" - Feb 2018
http://eidclimate...ral-gas/
"Climate Group: Natural Gas, Not Renewables, Is Largest Factor In Emissions Decline"
https://www.forbe...decline/

Natural gas reduces a little bit the CO₂ emissions and the "unreliables" (fossil-addicted parasites) steal the credits.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2018
"...at least half the work of decarbonization has been done by natural gas
So what? I keep asking the same question - and you never answer it. Gas use dropped last year - already showed you that. GE is planning to sell it's turbine unit - as they recognize the future is in renewables - already showed you that. Seems you are not a very good student - probably why you resort to being a potty mouth - rather than knowing stuff.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
...Gas use dropped last year...
"total U.S. net generation fell by 1.5% in 2017, compared with the year before" because intermittent renewables are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket, inducing poor families to reduce their electricity consumption.
"The high penetration of renewables results in high electricity costs not just in California, but all over the world."
http://www.scienc...t-energy
"More than a hard technical limit, what determines the upper penetration of solar panels / wind turbines on a grid is how much people are willing to pay for their electricity."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2018
From Willie's own link -
Give me mass-scale storage and I don't worry at all. With my wind and photovoltaics I can take care of everything." But "we are nowhere close to it," he says
And of course we are making a lot of progress on the front of storage. We are now seeing bids for solar plus storage giving fossil fuels a run for their money - https://ensia.com...storage/

Still waiting for that cost curve on nukes Willie....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
..of course we are making a lot of progress on the front of storage. We are now seeing bids for solar plus storage giving fossil fuels a run for their money..
Times ago, renewable cultists had said wind/solar were replacing coal in Germany and everywhere.
So if it were possible to convert their lies into electricity it would have indeed replaced coal.
"Germany has permitted the demolition of old forests ... villages in order to mine and burn coal."
https://uploads.d...5fb4.jpg
"In 1998, coal represented 38% of global power generation. In 2017, it represented ... 38% of global power generation."
https://www.vox.c...e-change
"Retired inefficient coal plants by MW worldwide 2006-2017 at Jan 2018 =239,019MW"
"New high efficiency larger capacity coal plants built same period =996,959MW"
"Shows 75% increase new Coal Plant MW"
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
Times ago, renewable cultists had said wind/solar were replacing coal in Germany and everywhere.
As usual - just making stuff up - does not make it fact. The German plan was to shut nukes - fall back on coal - and slowly build out renewables to replace coal. You keep bringing up Germany - without talking about the real issue - which is countries like China and India. Global C02 levels are not impacted much - without huge transitions from those two. The big question - is how fast will this ship turn. It can be done with renewables, with nukes, or with both. I keep telling you that my hope is on both - but seems the cost factor favors renewables.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
...the cost factor favors renewables...
So let's include batteries/energy storage, integration(transmission lines and so on), waste storage/recycling, and let's see if it is really cost-competitive.
"The current volume of solar panel waste: 250,000 tonnes"
"The projected amount by 2050: 78 million tonnes"
"And it's toxic waste, not easily recyclable."
http://theenergyc...ic-waste
"If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?"
https://uploads.d...9648.jpg
"Solar waste is going into shit pits in homes in Kenya rather than being sent for recycling."
https://www.scien...18304055
"GE nuclear reactor eats its own waste."
https://www.relia...or-waste
https://pbs.twimg...GDys.jpg
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
"If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?"

Mine emit none, while powering my home and two electric cars.
What kind of pollutants does your power source emit, and what do you do with the nasty waste?
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2018
Willie
So let's include batteries/energy storage
Yes let's. https://www.vox.c...y-future
new wind+storage energy in Colorado is cheaper than energy from the state's existing coal plants; solar+storage energy is cheaper than 75 percent of the state's coal energy


And the price keeps falling. Still waiting for that cost curve on Nukes Willie.....
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
"Battery Storage Could Boost Coal Consumption" - Feb 2018
"More research shows that batteries aren't necessarily helping decarbonize the grid. In many cases, according to a team from the Rochester Institute of Technology, batteries are making it dirtier."
https://www.green...sumption
"Energy storage ... increases carbon emissions." - Apr 2018
https://www.vox.c...missions
"If solar and batteries cannot even replace a Honda portable generator how can Renewables power the world?"
https://uploads.d...7879.jpg

Solar/wind+batteries can be scalable in installed-capacity but in no way they are solution to stop Climate Change. Carbon-free nuclear power is the only way to go, as hydro/geothermal are site-specific(geographically limited) and biomass competes with agriculture.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2018
From Willie's own reference yet again
In January of last year, researchers showed that residential battery storage could be a significant source of emissions if not paired directly with renewable energy
If you read the article that I reference above - you see that it is talking about exactly that - pairing renewables with storage -
The median bid for a wind project was $18.10/MWh; the median for wind+storage was $21, just three dollars higher. The median bid for a solar PV project was $29.50/MWh; the median bid for solar+storage was $36, just seven dollars higher
See Willie - you have to understand the whole picture - instead of cherry picking things that feed your cult like belief system.

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2018
...you have to understand the whole picture...
Batteries are not manufactured/transported/recycled by sunshine&breeze powered machines.
They last on average 3 years, hardly more than 6 years, and then need to be replaced/recycled.
Solar/wind has low ERoI, hardly can payback the energy from fossil fuels used to manufacture/recycle batteries, windmills and solar panels.
"...solar and wind power are characterized by medium to low EROIs."
https://phys.org/...les.html
"Battery recycling is considered one of the most potentially hazardous industries." - March 2018
https://capitalan...why-0322
"WWF says we have no alternative to gas!"
"WWF are now only realizing that back up of wind turbines with lithium batteries is horrendously expensive!"
https://pbs.twimg...ShGx.jpg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
They last on average 3 years, hardly more than 6 years, and then need to be replaced/recycled
You keep moving the goal posts. A hallmark of a cultist. Tesla Powerwall is warrantied for daily charging - 10 years. https://www.energ...battery/
The data we are getting in on the Tesla car batteries is showing they are very resilient - and far outlast their warranty period.

Your 3 year number is for cell phone batteries - no active temp control. As usual - you have a 5 year old understanding of the subject.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2018
Tesla Powerwall is warrantied for daily charging - 10 years.
It has no 'unlimited cycles' and will have to replaced/recycled soon or later.

By the way, do you remember Tesla SolarCity? Just another solar/wind+batteries scam going belly up.
"Tesla's Constant Turmoil Can't Hide The Fact That SolarCity Is Dying" - Jun 22, 2018
https://www.forbe...s-dying/

Insanity: trying in large-scale something that doesn't work satisfactorily(technically/economically) even in small-scale, over and over again, no matter how many birds &bats will be slaughtered / natural landscapes & wildlife habitats destroyed; all in name of a "green" ideology.
https://pbs.twimg...LCaP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...WGin.jpg
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2018
It has no 'unlimited cycles' and will have to replaced/recycled soon or later
So will everything. The point being made is that in a discussion about renewable energy - you claim that lithium ion batteries only last 3 years. Well - the fact is that the Tesla Powerwall is warrantied for 10 years - so you clearly don't know shit about the subject do you?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
Sunshine&Breeze is renewable, but solar panels and windmills and batteries aren't.
Oil industry knows that wind/solar are so weak and cannot manufacture/install/recycle themselves and it's why fossil industry gives full support for intermittent renewables.
"Oil industry expertise is helping to get offshore wind turbines in the water" - June 21, 2018
https://energynew...e-water/
"The more we use, the more we seem to have. Should oil be labeled "renewable" energy? ??"
https://pbs.twimg...XeDF.jpg

"The big winner in additional electricity generating capacity during 2017 in the U.S. was natural gas. Once the capacity factor of each technology below is considered, natural gas looks even more impressive."
https://pbs.twimg...J3OO.jpg

"If you have interests in the coal / natural gas industry then by all accounts promote solar panels / wind turbines."
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
Sunshine&Breeze is renewable, but solar panels and windmills and batteries aren't


Yes they are. See - I fixed that for you Willie.

25% of Australian homes now have solar panels - https://www.juanc...phs.html

That is likely to double in the next year - https://www.thegu...ysts-say

See Willie - with all of your lies - you are nothing more than the king telling the tide to go back.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2018
Everybody wondered what happened to Baghdad Bob.

Not me.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
That is likely to double in the next year
No doubt intermittent renewables are growing in installed-capacity, also no doubt they are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions and displacing coal/oil/gas, and caused electricity prices to skyrocket.
"South Australian wind empire doing nothing for 3rd day in a row! Consumers in SA pay for that nothing! Gas power generation to the rescue again!"
https://pbs.twimg..._32Q.jpg

"The more renewable energy you use, the more expensive electricity is. The more nuclear power you use, the cheaper, safer and better for the environment electricity is."
https://pbs.twimg...ap9A.jpg
"Your electricity bill is going up. Again… Here are UK domestic energy prices in the era of "cheap renewables"."
https://pbs.twimg...RIOB.png
https://uk.reuter...BN1JI1CS
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2018
+greenoins1 From the source of your article, "In its May 2017 report, SunWiz said that a total of 5.7 GW of rooftop PV had been installed on 1.7 million households"
You do realize this capacity is equivalent to less than 3 nuclear reactors...
Anonym662145
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2018
+greenonions1 Here is a cost analysis of nuclear so you will finally stop requesting cost curves of the technology.
https://www.scien...16300106
Be careful this is an actual published scientific journal and I know how much you hate actually using scientific journals and articles that aren't blogs or secondary sources.

While nuclear costs have drastically risen over the last 40 years this does not necessarily indicate that new nuclear reactors will automatically be more expensive, since the introduction of Gen IV reactors opens the door to completely different technologies that can reduce many of the economic burdens facing nuclear today. Whether it be regulatory measures, liability claims or capital expenses the reason why new technologies like MSRs bring such promise is because they include technologies that reduce major capital expenses such as pressurization, while also significantly improving the risk of major catastrophes.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
+greenonions1 "The German plan was to shut nukes - fall back on coal - and slowly build out renewables to replace coal."
Im not quite sure why you or anyone would consider this to be a good plan. If you remove nuclear and fall back onto coal production you are dramatically increasing your country's CO2 emissions thus generating higher externalized cost over time. If the objective for renewable advocates is to reduce GHG emissions then this plan makes absolutely zero sense.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2018
Anonym
You do realize this capacity is equivalent to less than 3 nuclear reactors...
So what? Rome was not built in a day. Progress is being made - and we are only just reaching the point of grid parity in many markets. Smart money says that renewables are going to take off. This report suggests that solar in Australia is set to double in the next year. That would be 3 more nuke equivelant. How many actual nukes is Australia going to build in that one year period?
https://www.thegu...ysts-say
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2018
Here is a cost analysis of nuclear
Holy shit. I ask for a cost curve on nuclear power - and you give me that? Let me quote you from your CONSTRUCTION cost analysis
there is no single or intrinsic learning rate that we should expect for nuclear power technology, nor an expected cost trend. How costs evolve over time appears to be dependent on different regional, historical, and institutional factors at play. The large variance we see in cost trends over time and across different countries – even with similar nuclear reactor technologies
In other words - you got nothing.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2018
Willie
The more renewable energy you use, the more expensive electricity is
Wow - broken record much. Oklahoma gets more than 30% of it's power from wind - and has some of the cheapest electricity prices in the world. Just one example to prove your lie Willie. See - it is easy to be a broken record. But I'll give you another example too - https://www.colas...stralia/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
Oklahoma
You are becoming as Alzheimer sclerosed as gskam is. Hundreds/thousands of gigawatts of wind and solar have been deployed/installed around the world at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, and you have only states with abundant cheap gas/methane and/or cheap coal that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables as showcase.
"Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK
- Oklahoma(wind): 431gCO₂/kWh
- Ontario(nuclear): 25gCO₂/kWh
Victoria(Australia) runs mostly on coal, 726gCO₂/kWh.
https://uploads.d...119e.png
What about Germany, Denmark, California, Minnesota...?
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2018
You are becoming as Alzheimer sclerosed as gskam
Nope - you just don't understand the point being made. You see - you said
The more renewable energy you use, the more expensive electricity is
Which is proven a lie by any number of examples - but Oklahoma is where I live - so I use it as the example. Oklahoma gets more than 30% of it's power from renewables (almost all wind) - and still has cheap power. So your statement is false. You are a liar. Simple logic - just too advanced for potty mouth Willie...
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2018
+greenonions1 Clearly you did not actually bother to read my source, because if you had you would have realized that this analysis literally talks about the construction costs issues I spoke of earlier.

Look at the discrepancies in cost curves over time between the USA, Japan, EU, and South Korea for example. The article literally talks about how Three Mile Island played a considerable role in the increase of cost for nuclear plants in the USA versus capital costs for nuclear in other countries. This event greatly impacts the cost in the USA independently which is why the article states, "The limited scope of the existing literature on nuclear costs is further limited by the industry wide disruption caused by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979."
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
+greenonions1 Later the article elaborates on this point when it recognizes the difference between cost per region with, "When the US and Western European countries stopped building nuclear power in the 1990s, several other countries continued to build out their nuclear fleets in East and South Asia and Eastern Europe."

The large variance in regional cost trends is illustrated in all of the graphs that compare nuclear by region, so it appears you didn't even spend enough time on the article to look at the charts.

It amazes me how you have been continuously raving about how nuclear cost curves are not presented to you, but as soon as I produce one for you, you don't put any effort into actually analyzing the information presented.

Perhaps its because I gave you an actual scientific source, which you simply could not process because you are too accustomed to your secondary blogs, which offer consistently inaccurate and non-peer reviewed information.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
+greenonions1 Is this not what my analysis on nuclear construction cost spoke of?

"Rather than an "invariable exhibition of negative learning" and "inevitable" increases in complexity intrinsic to nuclear technology that lead to cost escalation (Grubler, 2010), it is clear that there is not a singular cost trend for nuclear technology, but a plurality of different country-specific experiences. A consistent "rhythm" of cost escalation suggested by Grubler (2010) does not match the historical record."

https://www.scien...16300106
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2018
Anonym
Clearly you did not actually bother to read my source
Anonmy - clearly I did bother to read your link - in great depth. This is how I knew that your link in no way reflected the question I was asking. I supplied a link to the cost curve of solar panels over the past 40 years. As usual - you personally took issue with my link - but of course cannot refute the reality that the cost of solar panels has fallen dramatically over the past decades. There are plenty of sources you can find on that topic - and they all agree with the basic premise. I was asking you and Willie to supply an equivalent reference for the cost of electricity from nukes. Yes - as the cost of panels falls - the cost of electricity falls - as solar panels have minimal operational cost. This is reflected in the falling cost of contracts. You supplied a link - that basically says "the CONSTRUCTION cost of nukes is all over the map - and therefore we cannot comment on any trend....
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
Anonym
A consistent "rhythm" of cost escalation suggested by Grubler (2010) does not match the historical record."
But we cannot comment on what the rhythm actually is - because it is all over the map. So then we have to look at contracts that are actually being signed. Hinkley Point has a strike point of around 12 cents Kwh - for 35 years - inflation adjusted up. This is in a world in which the cost of solar and wind have fallen dramatically - and all indications are that they will continue to fall. Current costs on solar and wind are around 3 - 4 cents Kwh - some even below 3 cents. Offshore is currently around 7 - 8 cents Kwh. Happy to be redundant - and supply you with links. You continue to be unable to provide any real world cost information for nukes....
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
You are a liar.
The best of what renewable cultists can do is call other liars.
wind/solar fiasco:
"Once a Climate Leader, Germany Risks Being 'Left Behind': Al Gore" - Jun 26, 2018
"In part because of Merkel's decision to end Germany's reliance on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster..." where no one has died from radiation exposure.
https://www.nytim...ore.html

And use scare tactics against carbon-free nuclear power:
"Local German politicians are leading the efforts to fear-monger against what every major scientific study says is the safest way to make reliable electricity."
"The only terrorists who have ever attacked nuclear plants were anti-nuclear activists like the ones leading Germany's efforts to incite a continent-wide panic." - Jun 26, 2018
https://www.forbe...r-power/
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
Hinkley Point ... Current costs on solar and wind are around 3 - 4 cents Kwh - some even below 3 cents. Offshore is currently around 7 - 8 cents Kwh.
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
Again:
Saying solar/wind is cheap, hiding the fact "batteries not included", it's the same as selling an electric car cheaper than a conventional one, without batteries, where the batteries is one of most expensive components of the car, and dishonestly not informing the innocent buyer.
https://pbs.twimg...63Yg.jpg
"New York's...The High Cost of Symbolic Environmentalism"
"...would require installing at least 200,000 MW of battery storage to compensate for wind and solar's inherent intermittency."
https://www.manha...565.html
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
Willie
The best of what renewable cultists can do is call other liars
When you lie - people call you a liar - how about them apples. This is a lie
The more renewable energy you use, the more expensive electricity is


The best you can do is be a potty mouth - which is what people do when they don't have facts to support their lies....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2018
The more renewable energy you use, the more expensive electricity is
That's the rule. The exception are states that have abundant supply of cheap coal and/or cheap gas/fracking that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables, e.g. Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc.
https://pbs.twimg...ap9A.jpg
If wind/solar were somewhat useful, they would at least help to reduce emissions, but not.
- Oklahoma(wind): 431gCO₂/kWh
- Ontario(nuclear): 25gCO₂/kWh
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
That's the rule
No it is not. Anyway - you made it as definitive statement. You did not qualify. That makes you a liar. You see - energy is highly complex. Each situation is unique. None the less - in contrast to your 'rule' - in many situations now - renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels - and for sure cheaper than nukes. Predictions are that new renewables will soon be cheaper than continuing to run existing coal and nukes. When we hit that point - we start to see existing plants being retired early - in favor of new renewables. That will be a tipping point - and you only have to wait a couple of years to see if that prediction pans out. So instead of being a potty mouth, and lying about energy facts - why not hold your horses and see what happens as we move forward? It is interesting times. - https://www.vox.c...-cheaper
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
So this is to show how deniers work. The facts are clear that the cost of renewables has fallen dramatically over the past decades, and we are now at the point at which they are around grid parity, and in many situations - the cheapest source of new build. This information can be found on google - and you can spend hours verifying this reality. One example - http://energyinno...lunging/
So Willie digs up this graphic -https://pbs.twimg...ap9A.jpg from a blog written by Eric Worrall - who writes for Breitbart, and Wattsup and i am sure others. In other words - a cultist denier.
That graphic is of course highly deceptive. One example - Germany is the top of the slope in terms of cost and installed capacity. Well of course - Germany shut down many of their nukes, and was a very early adopter in terms of renewables. cont.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
cont. So Germany is high on the curve - because of many factors. They are a trail blazer - but they paid a price for being such. The German people are highly supportive of the process (80%) - and in fact pay less per year for the electricity than the U.S. - because they are very frugal with their electricity use. So this graph is one dimensional - and does not address the reality that new build renewables are now the cheapest option - which is why so much is being built around the world - and that trend will most probably accelerate. The process of denying - and lying - to distort facts - is very interesting. History will judge potty mouths like Willie very badly.
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2018
+greenonions1 "the CONSTRUCTION cost of nukes is all over the map - and therefore we cannot comment on any trend."

The problem is when you make statements like this it makes it seem as though you really didn't read my source. This study collects information and determines trends from multiple regions over the last 50 years. Yes as a whole it is difficult to describe a trend, because nuclear varies in cost by region due to different variables. However, to claim that this study does not find any trends is ridiculous as the study's entire point is that there are many isolated trends throughout the world.

The entirety of Section 4 in this study is describing the findings of cost trends in every country pertaining to the study, over various time periods. WTF are you talking about that this study doesn't comment on any cost trend?

Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2018
"Therefore we cannot comment on any trend" Well the study did in fact comment on multiple trends:

"4.1.1. Cost trends in the United States
By capturing a full overnight construction cost history for the US by construction start date, four distinct phases of nuclear power construction become visible, shown in Fig. 2."

"4.1.2. Cost trends in France
The French nuclear power overnight construction cost history follows distinct stages that we highlight in Fig. 4."

"4.2. Other Western nuclear powers: data from Canada and West Germany
The Canadian cost history, shown in Fig. 6, is similar in shape to the French experience: sharply declining costs and then relatively mild cost escalation. The cost experience in West Germany follows a similar pattern as the other Western countries, shown in Fig. 7."

"In Japan, the cost trend repeats an L- or U-shape seen in the four previous countries, but evolves differently afterward"
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2018
...renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels...
"cheaper" but "batteries not included".
...how deniers work...
Face the reality: wind/solar are a grotesque fiasco in fight against Climate Change, 100% RE is now a REligion completely dishonest and divorced from reality.
Renewable cultists call liars who expose the facts and believe in their lies like animals that eat their own excrement, e.g. citing Oklahoma, a state with abundant cheap gas/fracking that need to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.

"Nuclear energy to remain key for France -finance minister Le Maire" - June 26, 2018
https://www.reute...8N1TS2OD
"If de-carbonizing energy production is the greatest challenge to humanity, nuclear...will be a major part of the solution."
https://www.wsj.c...29618441
cheap wind/solar = illusion
nuclear = cheaper prices
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2018
anonym
Well the study did in fact comment on multiple trends
Let me repeat the quote I pulled directly from your article -
there is no single or intrinsic learning rate that we should expect for nuclear power technology, nor an expected cost trend. How costs evolve over time appears to be dependent on different regional, historical, and institutional factors at play. The large variance we see in cost trends over time and across different countries – even with similar nuclear reactor technologies


So here's the point anonym - while I can give you very detailed information on the cost of renewable energy - both currently, and historically - you are not able to do the same thing for nukes. The numbers are hidden. However - as a real world example shows - Hinkley Point has a strike point of 12 cents a Kwh - for 35 years - inflation adjusted up. Wind and solar are now consistently running below 4 cents a Kwh - and 7 - 8 cents for offshore. Pretty straight forward...
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2018
cheaper" but "batteries not included"
Hey Goebels - keep repeating the big lie, and uninformed people may believe you. Once again - the evidence against your lie - https://renewecon...l-83151/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2018
Citing reneweconomy, cleantechnica...
You look like as sclerosed sociopath as gksam is.
...as a real world example shows - Hinkley Point has a strike point of 12 cents a Kwh ... Wind and solar...below 4 cents a Kwh - and 7 - 8 cents for offshore.
Again "cheaper" but "batteries not included".
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
"Battery storage reqd to convert Germany's 2013 solar generation to baseload: $800 billion!"

"Industry reps admit the claims that renewables are cheaper were a lie."
https://www.cbc.c....4719298

You cannot rely on wind/solar, but nuclear you can.
"British reliance on French energy increases by more than quarter" - Jun 2018
https://www.teleg...-quarter
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2018
+greenonions1 "So here's the point anonym - while I can give you very detailed information on the cost of renewable energy - both currently, and historically - you are not able to do the same thing for nukes."

First of all your source that supplied a solar cost curve provided the utility cost for one single day, so Im really not sure how you could possibly justify this as "detailed information". Furthermore utility prices simply provide the cost of solar that the utility pays, not the net cost which will include capital such as storage- again not very detailed at all.

Second of all, here is a list of Gen III reactors that are cheaper than Hinkley Point C, so its about time to stop using this as your only source for nuclear energy:

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant,
Taishan Nuclear Power Plant,
Kori Nuclear Power Plant,
Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station,
Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant II,
Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant,
Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2018
+greenonions1 Now to take this argument a step further and connect back to the reactors discussed in this article. The US Government recently passed a new bill called: "S. 1457: Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies Act" which requires that new nuclear projects meet cost competitive requirements of maintaining utility cost between $.06/KWh and $.07/KWh.

https://www.govtr...457/text

Yes this would still be greater than conventional forms of solar and onshore wind, but if successful you would likely have to compare renewable technologies + the cost of storage to Gen IV Nuclear. Some of these design incorporate modular systems both small and large scale. SMR technology could decrease utility cost even below this threshold, but at the expense of a significant loss of generation making them unsuitable for large utility scale. However Large Modular Reactor Systems may integrate MSAHTRs with hydrogen plants, LAES facilities and Desalination plants.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2018
Anonym
First of all your source that supplied a solar cost curve provided the utility cost for one single day
I can provide you with multiple sources showing that the cost of both wind and solar have dropped dramatically over the past decades. Two quick examples - https://www.windp...-charts/
http://www.costof...rything/

Here is the point for me. The reality of the falling cost of wind and solar is fully understood, common knowledge for any one who spends time around the energy world. It is bizarre to me that people like you and Willie want to engage in any kind of exchange on the subject of energy - when you don't understand such straight forward, and well documented facts.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2018
but if successful you would likely have to compare renewable technologies + the cost of storage to Gen IV Nuclear


Sure - and we have supplied you with multiple - real world examples such as this - https://thinkprog...b91a543/

And of course - the million dollar question. Given that your DEMONSTRATION projects MAY be get approval by 2028 (from the bill you referenced) - what will the cost of solar plus storage be 10 years from now?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2018
what will the cost of solar plus storage be 10 years from now?
What about the environmental/ecological costs? solar panels/windmills and batteries don't grown on trees.
"Wind and solar aren't green energy because they don't exist without fossil fuels and toxic elements."
"Renewable energy zealots wouldn't see reality even if the turbine's blade slapped them in the face."
"Seriously, people, we are dealing with a full blown religion when confronting solar panel / wind turbine zealots. No amount of facts will EVER convince them because for them this is an act of faith: RE will save us. Plus, the Pope is on their side."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2018
What about the environmental/ecological costs?
Gee smarty pants - so what energy system that does not have an environmental/ecological cost would you recommend? Bear in mind that I support the use of nuclear power - and hope that it is a significant part of our energy future. I believe that the benefits of nuclear far outweigh the environmental and financial costs. I just advocate for an honest dialogue - not one that is full of lies.

Nukes do of course also have significant environmental cost
Solar, wind and geothermal energy still have environmental issues, but ones that are not as great as nuclear plants or coal-burning power plants
https://sciencing...966.html
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "what will the cost of solar plus storage be 10 years from now?"
This is a good question and one that is difficult to project. I believe that the costs will decline, but for large utility scale investments it will not be lower than the projected $.06KWh due to challenges of storage development related to batteries and integrating industrial scale storage technologies such as LAES or Redox Systems.

While there is certainly a lot of R&D into better battery performance the major issue at hand is largely a chemical engineering feat, which requires a significant learning curve into how to create better energy density using new chemical formulations. We have past experience with existing chemical compounds, but what we require today is new compounds and this can take considerably more time.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1
Additionally there are issues with existing battery technologies where better compounds with better energy densities particularly those involving nickel, manganese and cobalt are facing supply issues. Couple this with the fact that these technologies need to increase their rate of deployment to match renewable integration and you face a major challenge where we need a solution in a short amount of time and it seems like the likely solution is to wait for more time to pass in order to find the solution. This is a problematic contradiction, which can effect the cost of batteries in the near future.

This is one of the many reasons, why you are beginning to see more 100% renewable plans becoming more reliant on natural gas storage systems rather than ideas that do not require the continued incorporation of fossil fuel technology.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "Nukes do of course also have significant environmental cost"
The article you provided does not actually say this.

"Nuclear power plants may not emit carbon dioxide during operation, but high amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted in activities related to building and running the plants. Nuclear power plants use uranium as fuel. The process of mining uranium releases high amounts of carbon dioxide into the environment."
While this is true the lifecycle emissions for nuclear energy are still considerable low- in fact they are lower than that of photovoltaic solar according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory LCA study: https://www.nrel....ent.html

"Nuclear power plants constantly emit low levels of radiation into the environment. There is a differing of opinion among scientists over the effects caused by constant low levels of radiation."
This difference comes as a result of many problems with LNT theory.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 Article rebuttal and claim Part 2
"The degree of damage low levels of radiation cause to wildlife, plants and the ozone layer is not fully understood."
It is difficult to determine the actual damage of low levels of radiation, as different isotopes can effect organisms differently, but saying that this poses a significant hazard is quite an exaggeration as many of these studies also conclude that it difficult to definitively claim that the radiation from nearby plants are directly responsible for cancer rates in a particular area more than other forms of pollution or human behavior. Genetics also plays a large role in cancer formation, so to claim that the reactors would increase the rate for everyone is also quite misleading.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1
"Radioactive waste is a huge concern. Waste from nuclear power plants can remain active for hundreds of thousands of years."
If this is the reason you feel that radioactive waste is a huge concern then youre not talking about actual medical risk as these particular isotopes have lower levels of radioactivity and thus pose a lower risk for radiation dosage. This analysis also doesn't really make any sense when you compare it to other hazardous waste products. While Plutonium 239 may remain radioactive for upwards of 250,000 years, silicon tetrachloride or cadmium waste products remain toxic for infinity, because they are based on chemical characteristics and not atomic characteristics (although plutonium 239 does also have significant chemical problems).
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1
"There are several issues with burying the radioactive waste. Waste would be transported in large trucks. In the event of an accident, the radioactive waste could possibly leak."
Given that there aren't any deep geological repositories in the world I fail to see what evidence the claim of burying waste is alluding to. You could use the WIPP facility as evidence, but you need to make a note that DGRs are about 100-500 meters below the depth of WIPP.

Again the concern of waste transportation seems to be a claim based on zero evidence. While there have been reported incidents of radioactive contamination of medical materials from transportation vehicles, transporting HLW based on nuclear energy requirements is contained, managed and handled completely differently. I am not aware of an example to make this claim.

Anytime you have to use the argument of "In the event of an accident" you are not actually using any evidence to support your claim.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "There is no current solution to deal with the issue of radioactive waste."
While there is not major federally agreed upon solution this by no means suggests that there aren't solutions of waste management. I have already brought up 4 different solutions that do not include DGRs- Fast Spectrum, Reprocessing + Reuse, Breeding and Burning.

" First, the cooling system pulls water from an ocean or river source. Fish are inadvertently captured in the cooling system intake and killed. Second, after the water is used to cool the power plant, it is returned to the ocean or river"
The problem with this argument is that it is referring to a single reactor type- a BWR. There is a wide range of nuclear reactor types- many of which do not even require water at all. Furthermore PWRs do not cycle water back into a water system that is exclusively a BWR design choice. The majority of reactors in the USA are not BWRs.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "If a nuclear power plant accident occurs, the environment and surrounding people could be exposed to high levels of radiation. The 2011 accident at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan is one of the worst nuclear disasters in history"

This argument insinuates that Fukushima Daiichi could occur to any reactor in the world. However such a claim completely ignores all scientific understanding of seismology, geology, and hydrology. I would love to hear this articles explanation of how LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station is going to get hit by a tsunami, when it is located near the middle of Illinois and over 2,000 miles from an oceanic subduction zone. You cannot just take a nuclear reactor in one location and expect similar accidents for every nuclear plant regardless of reactor type, geographical location, geological and seismological factors.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "Terrorism threats are another concern that needs to be addressed. A satisfactory plan to protect nuclear power plants from terrorism is not in place."
These plans actually do exist, but are commonly not discussed, because the risk insanely ridiculous. I would love to hear this article's explanation of how terrorists would actually damage the plant or steal any material seeing as it has literally never happened once in human history.

When people bring up the argument of cyber security risk, they fail to recognize three important factors. 1. Nuclear reactor power systems do not connect with the grid. 2. Nuclear reactor control systems are set in analog. 3. Triggering a meltdown is a thermodynamic phenomena that is not inherently based on electricity. It is extremely difficult to hack into a nuclear reactor simply based on the existing technology that allows a reactor to operate.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
Bear in mind that I support the use of nuclear power..
You look like more a fossil fuel lobbyist travestied as environmentalist.
"Wind turbines. Built with fossil fuels, operated with fossil fuels and backed up with fossil fuels. The only green thing about them is the ignorance of those who support them"

Nuclear waste isn't a concern.
"Nuclear Waste: Ideas vs Reality"
https://thoughtsc...leak.png
https://thoughtsc...reality/
https://thoughtsc...r-waste/
"Used Nuclear Fuel"
https://www.youtu...vIzH2W6g
https://www.youtu...dQQsxiq0
https://www.youtu...ZMxf_kZg

Solar/wind wastes are a huge concern.
"If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?"
http://theenergyc...ic-waste
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 Additionally lets play out how exactly you expect to trigger a meltdown. You decide to cut power to a nuclear reactor to trigger a meltdown. Ok this causes an automatic SCRAM response, which is not controlled in any way by the faculty on site. If you want the reactor to remain operational you cannot cut power. If you cut the power then the onsite backup generators, which are not hooked into grid (meaning you don't have control over them) turn on. If the system detects that backup coolant cannot be provided to the reactor core, then there are manually ways of providing the coolant to the system. In the USA it is NRC regulation that all nuclear reactors provide backup coolant onsite. Even in the event that you manage to create a scenario of a potential meltdown, resources can be provided from other sources.

The reason why Fukushima did not have this option was because the reactors were flooded by the tsunami and all systems, backup coolant and resources were unusable.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "Solar, wind and geothermal energy still have environmental issues, but ones that are not as great as nuclear plants or coal-burning power plants."
I would argue that modern solar and wind do not present as great of environmental concerns as Gen II nuclear reactors, which is an important distinction, because it clarifies that we are comparing 1960-1980s technology to 2010s technology. There are inherent liability problems with water cooled reactors, which is why many nuclear supporters have been urging the USA to integrate modern nuclear reactor types into our energy portfolio for the last 40 years.

These reactors ultimately remove your major concerns of pressure, excess heat, meltdown potential and reduce waste production. Additionally there are other technologies in current existence which can manage nuclear waste, but this article put zero effort into describing them.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2018
These reactors ultimately remove your major concerns of pressure, excess heat, meltdown potential and reduce waste production
But the point for the discussion is that just as wind and solar have some environmental concerns - so do nukes. You have to mine the uranium - right? Compared to fossil fuels, they are all a great deal cleaner. Just dishonest of Ward to bring up the environmental concerns of renewables - but to ignore those of nukes.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2018
Willie
You look like more a fossil fuel lobbyist travestied as environmentalist
You think that cuz you can't read. I have stipulated thousands of times - that I support both nukes and renewables. I am for an all of the above - throw everything we have at the problem of climate change. I am excited to see if smr's, or LFTR's can meet up to the promises. I am just not a potty mouthed, rude liar - who does not know what is happening in the world - like you are.
Anonym662145
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2018
+greenonions1 "Just dishonest of Ward to bring up the environmental concerns of renewables - but to ignore those of nukes."

As much as it is dishonest for someone to only talk about the environmental issues of renewables it is just as equally as misleading to talk solely about the environmental concerns of nuclear waste without any context or description of what actually makes nuclear waste hazardous. When people and articles make the claim that nuclear waste is dangerous because it lasts a long time this is a terrible argument, because it completely ignores the entire definition of radioactivity and fails to recognize that all other waste remains toxic indefinitely. Radioactivity increases the amount of risk for materials, but just because something has radioactivity does not suggest that it is inherently more dangerous than other forms of hazardous materials. If radioactive materials were as inherently dangerous as you and this article describe than life couldn't exist on earth.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 01, 2018
As much as it is dishonest for someone to only talk about the environmental issues of renewables it is just as equally as misleading to talk solely about the environmental concerns of nuclear waste
I have not done that. I simply rebutted Willie saying this
What about the environmental/ecological costs?
By asking which energy source does not have an environmental cost - that Willie would recommend. Of course the point being that just as wind and solar do have an environmental cost - so do nukes. You really seem unable to understand a pretty basic point.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2018
By asking which energy source does not have an environmental cost...
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density. So wind/solar requires much more materials/mining/land per gigawatt of installed-capacity than carbon-free nuclear power; uranium is about 4.5 billions times more energy dense than a molecule of air/wind.
It's needed hundreds/thousands of wind turbines in a windy day(otherwise backed up by coal/gas-fired plants) to match the output of a carbon-free nuclear power plant.
https://pbs.twimg...xW1l.jpg
"Energy density strongly determines environmental impact. High-density fuels require less mining, materials & land — & generate less waste."

Wind/solar has a huge environmental/ecological cost that is entirely neglected by the faux-greens.
https://pbs.twimg...0zRI.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...WrDQ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ZLMG.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2018
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Please provide a reference for this assertion - it sounds like rubbish to me. Coal is pretty energy dense - but also has very high environmental cost. You need to provide support for your very specific assertion. We await your links....
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2018
Coal is pretty energy dense - but also has very high environmental cost.
There aren't factories and machines 100% powered by sunshine&breeze to manufacture/mine/transport/install/maintain/recycle windmills and solar panels. Thus aside their environmental costs(destruction of natural landscapes and wildlife habitats, massacre of millions of birds and other endangered species) it should be put into account of renewables the environmental costs of coal and other fossil fuels used to produce/transport/maintain their components and also to keep lights on when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining.
"Energy tech comparison: 4 of the tallest wind turbines in the world (not yet built) can match the power generated by 1 trailer mounted gas turbine. Each wind turbine is taller than the Eiffel tower."
https://pbs.twimg...HqaW.jpg
Fossil-fueled maintenance:
https://pbs.twimg...9y4L.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...2D2q.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2018
Willie - I asked you for a source on this quote -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density


Now either produce one - or understand that you are nothing but a laughing stock. You say things that are not true (lie) - and when asked to support your lies - you have nothing. You are clueless. You are trying to convince people that you understand a complex subject - but you know nothing.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2018
Simple to understand: sun and wind are renewables, but solar panels and windmills aren't; they needed to be maintained/repaired/replaced/recycled by fossil-fueled machines; theoretically they should last 30 year but in practice around 12 years.
Concluding: the "unreliables" (fossil-addicted parasites) produce more ecological impacts than they produce energy.

"The potent combination of low wind availability and a heat wave could lead to power prices spiking, with utilities ramping up output from higher-cost thermal power stations,"
"All wind farms experience lulls from time to time. In Britain, turbines produced almost no electricity for more than a week at the start of this month. The U.K. also is due to have fewer breezes in the coming days than it did this week." - Jun 22, 2018
https://www.bloom...s-europe
You cannot rely on sunshine&breeze unicorn energy, but carbon-free nuclear you can.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
More gibberish. I asked you to provide some support for this statement.
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
The fact that you cannot - shows that you just say rubbish - and don't know what you are talking about.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2018
Destroying the planet to save it.
With Eco-nuts as friends, Nature doesn't need enemies.
"Elon Musk 'to build the world's biggest battery' in Britain as part of £400m plans to carpet a swathe of Kent marshland with almost a million solar panels" - July 1, 2018 https://notalotof...-panels/
https://pbs.twimg...M3dA.jpg

Now explain how covering large land/offshore areas with bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers will cause less ecological impacts than drilling an oil well, taking in mind that tons of oil are necessary to lubricate the turbines and also to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/recycle the windmills and solar panels.
https://uploads.d...b85e.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2018
Now explain how covering large land/offshore areas with bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers will cause less ecological impacts than drilling an oil well
The metric would have to be - ecological impact per unit of energy. YOU would have to show that wind turbines have a greater ecological impact than a coal plant. YOU were the one who said this -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Where is your source to make this bold assertion Willie. And when you evaluate a source such as coal - you have to look at building the plant, mining the coal, washing the coal, transporting the coal, burning the coal, dumping the fly ash etc. Where is your source Willie - or do you just say rubbish - cuz you don't know the subject matter????
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2018
...when you evaluate a source such as coal...
You talk as if wind/solar had replaced coal or gas/fracking, just take a look at Germany: ~100 GW of wind/solar and they will have to replace coal by gas.

"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
"But oil spills the size of the BP accident don't happen every year. Deaths caused by wind turbines and solar farms, however, don't stop."
https://uploads.d...3cfc.jpg
https://uploads.d...eb30.jpg
"Wind farms don't stop mining! A Single 3MW Wind Turbine Needs: 335 tons of steel; 4.7 tons of copper ; 1,200 tons of concrete (cement and aggregates) ; 3 tons of aluminum ; 2 tons of rare earth elements ; Zinc ; Molybdenum. Zinc, Nickel, Cobalt, Platinum, Nickel!"
https://uploads.d...62d7.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2018
100 GW of wind/solar and they will have to replace coal by gas
They are ahead of schedule to get 35% of electricity from renewables by 2020, and 100% by 2050. It is called progress.

More gibberish from Willie. Where is your support for this assertion?
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Why do you want to keep babbling - when you cant even answer one simple question?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2018
It is called progress.
"Trillions of investment in "cheap" and "quick" and "scalable" wind and solar have basically amounted to almost nothing."
https://pbs.twimg...8w2Z.jpg
"It's official. Antinuclearism will cost German citizens 2300 billion euros by 2050, of which about 1000 billion is pure loss. No jobs. No benefits. Just loss! An absolutely shocking #climatefail #Parisagreement Major government study:"
https://www.welt....uro.html
"Even the costliest nuclear plant today will deliver the cheapest reliable (and clean) power tomorrow"
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
https://www.insti...ologies/
Wind and solar, plus batteries/storage, are expensive and ineffective, ecological disasters. Carbon-free nuclear power is the cheapest and the only scalable way to decarbonize.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear power is the cheapest and the only scalable way to decarbonize
No it is not. The Brits are getting saddled with 12 cents Kwh electricity - in a 3 cent world. They will be locked into 12 cent power - inflation adjusted up - for 35 years. We keep asking you for a cost curve on nukes - and all you can do babble a bunch of gibberish. Where is your support for this assertion?
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Anonym662145
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2018
+greenonions1 jesus dude, I give 5 examples of Gen III reactors that are completed at a cheaper price than Hinkley Point and yet you still have the gall to use them as your only sting of evidence that nuclear is not economically competitive? Get some new information for once.

Also I already supplied a cost curve, yet I see you also have developed amnesia and forgotten its existence as well.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2018
I give 5 examples of Gen III reactors that are completed at a cheaper price than Hinkley Point
No you did not. Don't you think that if this mythical example of reactors that have been completed cheaper than Hinkley actually existed - EDF and the Chinese would be jumping on that one - and scrap the plans for Hinkley?

Also I already supplied a cost curve
No you did not. You linked to an article that talked about the construction cost of nuclear - which is of course only one part of the cost of the power coming from nuclear. As previously pointed out - that article basically says that there is no identifiable trend - as the CONSTRUCTION costs for plants around the world are all over the map. We already went over that one. Are you really thick - or just enjoy obfuscating?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2018
The Brits are getting saddled with 12 cents Kwh electricity - in a 3 cent world.
Renewable cultists look like complete retards, don't include batteries or cite propagandist websites with cheap wind/solar+batteries scams.

"In Britain, turbines produced almost no electricity for more than a week at the start of this month." - Jun 2018
https://www.bloom...s-europe

We burn fossil fuel: when the wind isn't blowing, to mine iron ore, to smelt iron into steel, turning that steel into wind turbine components, to complete and transport wind turbines to site, installing the wind turbines, maintaining wind turbines. Is this really a solution? NO.
https://pbs.twimg...V63H.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...kPHM.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...7GdD.jpg
"Energiewende is a complete success for the owners and exploiters of coal and "natural" gas."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2018
Renewable cultists look like complete retards
You are such an ignorant little potty mouth - being crude and rude is all you have - facts are leaving you in the dustbin of history. Every day there are dozens of stories about the unstoppable march of the new technologies - and your nukes are not keeping up Willie.
Example - https://renewecon...a-54303/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
Energiewende is a complete success for the owners and exploiters of coal and "natural" gas
In the short term Willie - but they are playing the long game. They are on track to supply 65% of their power from renewables by 2030 - https://renewecon...s-19548/
And guess what Willie?
"Renewable energies have not only become more and more cost-effective, but new plants are now also producing significantly cheaper electricity than new conventional power plants
And so as time goes forward - they will keep getting cheaper. Unlike your nukes - at 12 cents a Kwh - inflation adjusted up - for the next 35 years. Wonder what the cost of solar will be by that time. Probably around 10 Kwh for a penny.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2018
reneweconomy? again citing propagandist/scammer websites.
...they are playing the long game.
Indeed, "playing the long game", since medieval ages, windmills and sails replaced by steam engines...
"Wind turbines don't even last the 25 years promised by promoters. Their economic lifespan tops out at around 15 years. Which means that within a decade Europe will be covered in tens of thousands of 2-300 tonne hulks, quietly rusting and leaking a cocktail of toxic ooze."
They are on track to supply 65% of their power from renewables...
"Thanks to Energiewende, Germany is totally dependent on Russia for gas."
'Germany is a captive of Russia because they got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear plants. They're getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it's something NATO has to look at.'
https://www.realc...sad.html
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
reneweconomy? again citing propagandist/scammer websites
Coming from liar Willie - who quotes Breitbart, and the Daily Mail - that is real irony.

Germany is totally dependent on Russia for gas
Because they don't have much domestic gas supply - and a big part of the reason they are pushing so hard into renewables. On track for 100% electricity supply from renewables by 2050 - https://sustainab...enu=1449

The tide is coming in Willie - you are just to wrapped up in your own religion to see what is happening. Keep howling Willie - the tide is not going to stop for you...

WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2018
On track for 100% electricity supply from renewables by 2050
Hilarious, current wind/solar farms will not last until 2050, they will have to replaced/recycled several times at cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts, all carried out by fossil-fueled machines, just to please the Eco-nuts.
"Wind energy's big disposal problem" - Jul 13, 2018
"Germany has more than 28,000 wind turbines — but many are old and by 2023 more than a third must be decommissioned. Disposing of them is a huge environmental problem. Expert Jan Tessmer tells DW he's optimistic."
https://www.dw.co...44665439
"Pushing for wind and solar will be seen in the future as a ridiculous foley, similar to the misinformation campaigns of the cigarette and fossil fuel industries. I believe wind and solar are the biggest frauds of the 21st century."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
Hilarious, current wind/solar farms will not last until 2050
More lies from potty mouth - https://www.sunru...lly-last

Of course - it does not matter if you end up replacing panels or turbines after say 25 years. Your costs have been recouped after just a few years - and then you have been supplying cheap energy for decades. 25 years down the road - panels will be recyclable - and the state of the art replacement panels will undoubtedly be cheaper, and more reliable. Cheap power is cheap power Willie...… Beats 12 cents kwh from your precious Hinkley. Still waiting on that cost curve....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2018
Solar panels can last forever in ideal climate conditions, but their efficiency drops "0.4-0.5%" annually according to your propagandist website.
It is not necessary to be a genius to conclude that a new solar panel produces more energy than a old one, while a sixty year old carbon-free nuclear power plant can produce hundreds/thousands times more energy per square meter than new solar panels backed up by coal/gas-fired plants to compensate intermittencies.
Solar and wind are a joke, they are only taken seriously due to vested interests behind mainstream mass media which manipulates the public opinion to keep the renewable scam ongoing to favor the coal/oil/gas industries over carbon-free nuclear energy.
Cheap power is cheap power...
But it has caused the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere, except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal and gas/fracking to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
But it has caused the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere
You got busted on your lie too many times - so now you add a little qualifier
except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal and gas/fracking
But that is also a lie. Here is a good discussion of the lie about wind and solar driving up the price of power - https://www.forbe...8c7b8b73

No different than your big lie
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density


You still can't supply any reference for your lies - but you just move on to the next one....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2018
"The cost of solar installations has fallen due to government subsidies. Solar energy could not survive at all without massive government subsidies. In terms of production, solar energy has received ten times the subsidies all other forms of energy."
"The True Cost of Solar Energy" - Feb 07, 2018
http://www.powere...r-energy

Meanwhile in China, one of the world's leading manufacturers of windmills and solar panels:
"Nuclear power is cheaper than wind or solar power in China. It's competitive with burning fossil fuels."
"China will still push for more nuclear power to displace coal" - July 16, 2018
https://www.nextb...oal.html
"Wind-power system off Fukushima performs poorly: sources" - Jun 25, 2018
https://www.japan...sources/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2018
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
'Solar power plants causing landslides amid heavy rain'
https://pbs.twimg...NBYS.jpg
http://www.koreat...793.html
"14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines being left to rot in the USA"
http://raptorpoli...the-usa/
"People who live near wind turbines report having a lower quality of life" - July 03, 2018
https://www.natur...ife.html
"Wind has very poor EROI.. no adversary..fraudulent marketing..falsifying wind data..mass manipulation of public with misleading claims of nameplate capacity vs actual production..not to mention human health & environmental impacts. Hiding the truth is no help"
https://pbs.twimg...ChhC.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2018
Solar power plants causing landslides amid heavy rain
The heavy rain caused the land slides - dummy.

Now why don't you support your claim
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Show us how wind turbines have a higher environmental cost than coal does....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2018
Show us how wind turbines have a higher environmental cost than coal does....
It's quite simple: without cheap coal, wind turbines and solar panels hardly can be manufactured. Nuclear requires much less coal/oil/gas per gigawatt-installed, carbon-free nuclear can power whole industrial parks without fossil fuels to compensate intermittencies, could produce synfuels for transportation, etc. a thing that wind/solar can't due their low ERoI.
https://uploads.d...ad8d.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...V63H.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...Aj75.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...gmsL.jpg

"The sun and wind may be clean but the materials needed to convert them to energy are causing an environmental disaster"
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...pGTf.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2018
It's quite simple: without cheap coal, wind turbines and solar panels hardly can be manufactured
Yes they can - you can use any source of electricity you want to power a wind turbine plant - including wind power. And you cant run a nuke without all that fossil fuel to run the big machinery to mine, transport, process, and transport the uranium. None of that has anything to do with this lie -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
So why don't you give us a source that supports the assertion of inverse proportionality of environmental cost to energy density. Stop blurting rubbish - and give us a specific source Willie.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2018
Nukes and coal are looking for a $70 billion hand out from the U.S. tax payer - cuz according to Willie - they are so cheap. Huh? That makes no sense!!!! https://cleantech...billion/
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jul 21, 2018
"advanced small modular reactor"

Interesting configuration. Am I mistaken or are these cores the kind of thing that could fit on a BFR and be sent to Mars?

Coincidence or ???

"Advanced SMRs range in size up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe), employ modular construction techniques, ship major components from factory fabrication locations to the plant site by rail or truck, and include designs that simplify plant site activities required for plant assembly."

-I think youre all missing the Big Fucking Reason for everything going on in the world today.

Egg hatching is messy business.

If anything, mass production is what will open the system up to colonization. This is exactly WHY NASA wont be doing it. Their role is recon, establishing bridgeheads, sentry duty, etc.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2018
With just a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy, the emissions and fossil fuel usage drop, as well the electricity prices.
With a hundred of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar it hardly can be noticed any reduction in emissions as well fossil fuel consumption, except the electricity prices skyrocketing.
"Japan's LNG imports fall to lowest since May 2016 as nuclear units come online" - July 19, 2018
https://www.reute...4N1UF32O
Nuclear: 10.1 ¥/kwh
Wind: 21.9 ¥/kwh
Solar: 24.3 ¥/kwh
"Japan carbon emissions fall as reactors restart"
https://www.reute...BN1E609Z

Cheap solar/wind+batteries is a scam. Intermittent renewables as solution to Climate Change is a fraud.
Solar/wind cultists have no option except call liar who expose the facts.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2018
except the electricity prices skyrocketing
Keep lying dummy.
electricity generation from fossil fuels declined in 2017 at the same time that generation from renewables increased — specifically, natural gas generation fell by 7.7% and coal generation fell by 2.5%, while generation from hydro, wind, and solar all saw increases
I just looked at my smart meter Willie - I am paying 5 cents Kwh. We have some of the cheapest commercial electricity prices in the world. Keep up Willie - the tide is coming in....

https://cleantech...billion/
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2018
...electricity generation from fossil fuels declined in 2017...
Solar/wind cultists are so dishonest.
"According to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) latest Electric Power Monthly, total net electricity generation fell by 1.5% in 2017, reflecting lower electricity demand across the country." Demand lowering while electricity prices skyrocketing thanks to penetration of intermittent renewables.
I am paying 5 cents Kwh. We have some of the cheapest commercial electricity prices in the world.
It's thanks to cheap natural gas being "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
- Oklahoma(wind): 431gCO₂/kWh
- Ontario(nuclear): 25gCO₂/kWh
"Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=OK
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2018
Re reactors on mars;

"Each NuScale reactor vessel is expected to be 9 feet diameter (2.74 meters) by 65 feet high (19.81 meters) and weigh 650 tons (590 metric tons). The modules would be pre-fabricated, delivered by railcar, barge or special trucks and assembled on-site. The units were designed to produce 60 megawatts of electricity each and require refueling with standard 4.95 percent enriched uranium-235 fuel every two years."

BFR "Payload to Mars: 330,000 lb/165 tons; payload bay 20'x80ft"

-so optimistically, 6 trips.

Pressurized, no shielding needed, only H2O and u235.

No-brainer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2018
Again, mass-production will make mars possible. 100s used on earth will prove the tech and drop the cost.

For comparison

ISS - "Altogether, the four sets of arrays are capable of generating 84 to 120 kilowatts of electricity – enough to provide power more than 40 homes on Earth."

So one will do a small city.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2018
Detail of NuScale reactor:
https://en.wikipe...ctor.png

Waste heat:

"This design uses an "umbrella deployed" radiator to send waste heat to the thin Mars atmosphere or a vacuum, I have heard some suggestions that you really want to send waste heat into the Martial soil as it can conduct heat more efficiently, and possibly use the waste heat for habitats or industrial purposes"

Size:

"For what SpaceX wants, they need ~MWatt almost immediately - and much more shortly afterwards.

"Just fuel and oxygen production, digging and trenching, construction..."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2018
Willie liar.
Demand lowering while electricity prices skyrocketing thanks to penetration of intermittent renewables


You can't answer a simple question - and then you have to distract by lying. Here look - a chart of U.S. electricity rates. https://www.eia.g...mt_5_6_a

Notice some states have gone up, and others have gone down. On average - residential rates went up by 0.2 cents Kwh. Commercial rates went up 0.24 cents, and industrial rates went down .03 cents. Not exactly "skyrocketing" - you liar. Now why don't you answer the two questions for us?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2018
"The higher the penetration of solar panels / wind turbines in a grid, the more damage they cause to the grid, consumer pockets and the planet."
"Yesterday $4000 per MWh in Texas. That is what happens without adequate resilient baseload. Hinkley £92 per MWh seems good value because it is 24/7/365 unlike wind and solar. Little wind generation in UK for last month. Invest in Nuclear not Unreliables" - Jul 20, 2018
https://www.forbe...d-twice/

"All-renewable energy is a prescription for disaster" - July 4, 2018
"Indeed, major renewable-energy mandates usually result in soaring electricity prices."
https://nypost.co...isaster/
..liar...
"The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying"
https://pbs.twimg...0bmJ.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2018
The First Thing A Cult Does Is Tell You Everyone Else Is Lying
Who said everyone else is lying? I only accuse you of lying. I don't think the IEA is lying when they say
This record performance in 2016 forms the bedrock of the IEA's electricity forecast, which sees continued strong growth through 2022, with renewable electricity capacity forecast to expand by over 920 GW
I think the IEA knows more about energy than you do. They would never say stupid shit like
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Where is your source on that gem Willie?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2018
...renewable electricity capacity forecast to expand by over 920 GW
What should matter isn't the installed-capacity but the emissions reduced and fossil fuels displaced, in this requisite, wind and solar are a joke.

Remember, Japan by restarting just a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy has reduced emissions, electricity prices and dependence on fossil fuels; while Germany, even with almost a hundred of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar, is ever more stuck on coal and Russian gas.

Wake up! Your "920 GW" of intermittent energy is an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for the fossil fuel industry in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy(the only scalable way to stop Climate Change). Wind and solar are just a scalable ecological disaster.
"200 years ago or so, almost all the energy humanity used was renewable and we nearly destroyed our forests and pushed whales to extinction. Coal saved the forests and oil the whales."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2018
...renewable electricity capacity forecast to expand by over 920 GW
Wind and solar cultists are so dishonest, mixing up installed-capacity with energy produced.
gigawatt-installed ≠ gigawatt-generated
"The installed capacity of wind power preserves fossil fuel dependency."
"Wind Power Installation Amplifies The Growth Of Fossil Fuel Energies"
https://www.scien...18300983
"Capacity from renewable sources has grown by leaps and bounds, outpacing growth from all other sources — including coal, natural gas and nuclear power — in recent years. Solar and wind capacity installed in 2015 was more than 10 times what the International Energy Agency had forecast a decade before.
Still, except for very limited exceptions, all this wind and sun has not brought about much decarbonization. Indeed, it has not added much clean power to the grid."
https://www.nytim...les.html
greenonions1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2018
Wind and solar cultists are so dishonest, mixing up installed-capacity with energy produced
Never did that liar. Always aware of the issues of capacity factor, and intermittency. Gas and coal plants are running around 55% CF Willie - so what is your point? Even compensating for the slight difference in CF - renewables are spanking coal, gas, and nukes. Look at the pretty pictures Willie - https://www.iea.o...les2017/

Keep howling at the tide Willie - it will still come in. By the way - still waiting for some support for this rubbish -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Come on Willie - ask someone to show you how to use google. Ask a 5 year old to look it up for you. It's not really that difficult.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2018
Gas and coal plants are running around 55% CF
It's because coal/gas-fired plants act as backup for intermittent renewables.
renewables are spanking coal, gas,
"Energy giants opening natural gas spigots, fueling profit rise" - Jul 23, 2018
https://www.reute...BN1KD0F2
"The majority of Germans (54%) believe that natural gas is the best partner for renewables."
https://uploads.d...b2e7.jpg
"Today the fastest growing energy is natural gas. It is projected to overtake coal by 2040."
https://uploads.d...469e.jpg
https://uploads.d...18cd.jpg
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2018
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Some Greentards believe windmills and solar panels are manufactured/transported/installed/repaired/recycled by sunshine&breeze-powered machines, while other Greentards believe mining is unnecessary because windmills and solar panels grown on trees.
https://uploads.d...62d7.jpg
"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
"But oil spills the size of the BP accident don't happen every year. Deaths caused by wind turbines and solar farms, however, don't stop."
https://uploads.d...3cfc.jpg
https://uploads.d...eb30.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2018
It's because coal/gas-fired plants act as backup for intermittent renewables
Wrong - it is because we have a variable demand curve - so we must overbuild a system - so that we can meet the peeks in the demand. That is very basic to this whole debate.

Greentards believe mining is unnecessary
And nuketards believe that nuclear power station run on magic fairy dust. https://www.nap.e...hapter/9

Keep howling Willie - the tide keeps coming in. Coal and nukes screwing the U.S. tax payer for $34 billion hand out - because the can't compete with clean/cheap/happy face renewable energy. https://cleantech...billion/

The tide keeps coming in potty mouth - https://www.green....v01t5t4
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2018
...can't compete with clean/cheap/happy face renewable energy...
Carbon-free nuclear energy can't compete with cheap natural gas "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables and due to over-regulations imposed by the faux-greens in order to favor the fossil fuel industry.

Less than 4¢/kwh, "expensive batteries" are unnecessary for carbon-free nuclear energy:
"US nuclear plants are some of the lowest cost generators available. In 2016 average total cost of generation was less than $34/MWhr. Why do so many claim nuclear is "uncompetitive?" "
https://atomicins...markets/
"Nuclear is only expensive in the US and Western Europe due to unstable regulatory policy, poor business/management practices, and lack of experience. In Russia, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada it's cheaper than renewables."
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2018
...run on magic fairy dust...
Intermittent renewables are neither clean nor cheap, they are only decorative facades for the coal/oil/gas industries.
Wind and solar produce more ecological impacts than they produce energy.
"US Department of Energy goal states that 10% of electrical energy is to come from wind turbines by 2020. It would require 4,000,000 wind turbines to supply 50% of energy needs in US by 2030, which amounts to nearly 70 times more wind turbines than present. Absolute total madness!"
https://pbs.twimg...N3hc.jpg
' "Defining"insanity", repeating a massively flawed(corrupt)energy scheme which has failed everywhere unless your objective is actually to destroy prosperity..'

"Texas wind farm affects land temperature"
"A Texas region containing four of the world's largest wind farms showed an increase in land surface temperature over nine years..."
https://climate.n...erature/
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2018
Intermittent renewables are neither clean nor cheap
They are both. New build nukes now running around 12 cents kwh - wind and solar around 3 cents. Both much cleaner than this -
Uranium mining is an environmentally destructive and unsustainable process
https://greentumble.com/environmental-impacts-of-uranium-mining/

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2018
wind and solar around 3 cents.
"batteries not included". The best you can is to cite propagandist websites.

"Despite critics' claims that mining and milling uranium is a hidden cost in the comparatively clean nuclear fuel cycle, extracting the radioactive material produces only a small fraction of the process's total emissions, according to the author of a new study."
http://thestarpho...dy-says/

"Since 2010, when fracking for natural gas and oil in Oklahoma began in earnest, there has been a concomitant increase in seismicity, with many earthquakes induced by wastewater injection from fracking and other drilling operations."
"Between January 2010 and May 2017, ... 8,908 earthquakes across the state of Oklahoma, with an average of 218 earthquakes per month."
https://www.forbe...-public/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2018
Since 2010, when fracking for natural gas and oil in Oklahoma began in earnest, there has been a concomitant increase in seismicity
Yes Willie - fracking is bad. That is why I oppose fracking. That is why I promote the adoption of wind and solar. Is fracking worse than mining and burning coal? I don't know. There are no plans to build nuclear power plants in Oklahoma. There are many plans to keep building large quantities of wind. The Oil industry has a stranglehold on politics in Oklahoma. Wind industry is working hard to mount a challenge. Jerk wads like you set us back with your lies. Wind is just as scalable as nukes - but the wind industry is facing an uphill battle - against jerk wads like who - who don't know what you are talking about - but are determined to stop progress.

https://www.forbe...aab32f51
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
That is why I promote the adoption of wind and solar.
Wind/solar cultists never include batteries/energy storage which makes sunshine&breeze unicorn energy prohibitively expensive.

Eco-tards claim wind/solar+batteries is cheap, maybe in lalaland.
"The $2.5 trillion reason we can't rely on batteries to clean up the grid" - Jul 27, 2018
"Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role."
https://www.techn...he-grid/
"Batteries have a dirty secret" "Energy storage is considered a green technology. But it actually increases carbon emissions."
https://www.vox.c...missions

Wind and solar, plus batteries/storage, can be scalable, but in no way they are solution to stop Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2018
Eco-tards claim wind/solar+batteries is cheap, maybe in Lalaland
Nuke tards refuse to acknowledge the cost of nuclear - it makes them feel inadequate. https://cleantech...billion/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2018
Batteries not included, neither waste disposal.
"Most electricity sources have significant land requirements for fuel extraction, generation and waste disposal. These external costs are not reflected in electricity market prices"
https://pbs.twimg...G_SI.jpg
http://oe.cd/nea-...sts-2018
"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product."
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
"What happens when you cut down the trees on the sides of mountains to put up solar panels."
https://pbs.twimg...rCIk.jpg

CBS 60 Minutes:
"Despite billions invested by the U.S. government in so-called "Cleantech" energy, Washington and Silicon Valley have little to show for it"
https://pbs.twimg...onVc.jpg
https://www.cbsne...minutes/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2018
"Most electricity sources have significant land requirements for fuel extraction, generation and waste disposal. These external costs are not reflected in electricity market price
Like the mining of uranium for nukes huh?

What happens when you mine for uranium? https://www.aljaz...574.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
"Uranium is a by-product from copper, phosphate and rare earth mining."
"The sun and wind maybe clean but the material needed to convert them to energy are causing an environmental disaster"
https://pbs.twimg...QhYP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...pGTf.jpg
"The Dark Side of China's Solar Boom" - Jul 17, 2018
http://www.sixtht...ar-boom-
http://image5.six.../132.jpg

"How much radiation is in a chunk of uranium ore? Same as a bunch of bananas."
https://pbs.twimg...gn56.jpg
https://uploads.d...19f3.png
https://uploads.d...dbc8.jpg
https://upload.wi...Xkcd.png
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
"How much radiation is in a chunk of uranium ore?
Not the point Willie. Just as you have to mine some of the materials for renewables - you have to mine the uranium. And you get environmental damage when you do that.

Look Willie - in one day you get to watch the drip drip of renewables
https://cleantech...-output/

https://cleantech...by-2027/

https://cleantech...by-2020/

Tides coming in Willie - you and your buddy Donnie better figure out plan b.....
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2018
The best you have is "CleanTechnica", a biased/unreliable/propagandist website.
Renewable energy revolution:
https://pbs.twimg...u0Ol.jpg
In no way, intermittent renewables are solution to Climate Change:
https://pbs.twimg...Tv9m.jpg
Just as you have to mine some of the materials for renewables - you have to mine the uranium.
It's necessary hundreds/thousands of wind turbines/solar panels in a windy/sunny day(otherwise backed up by coal/gas-fired plants) to match the output of a carbon-free nuclear power plant.
https://pbs.twimg...xW1l.jpg
"By far the largest collective dose to workers per unit of electricity generated was found in the solar power cycle, followed by the wind power cycle. The reason for this is that these technologies require large amounts of rare earth metals, and the mining of low-grade ore exposes workers to natural radionuclides during mining."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2018
The best you have is "CleanTechnica
It beats Breitbart. At least it is a site with a specialization in energy. You just use political bullshit - probably something to do with your buddy Donald.

Wind and solar have a very low environmental impact compared to fossil fuels - so stop using red herrings. I support nuclear energy - just don't need to tell lies about it to support my religions like Willie liar and his friend Donnie.

https://www.scien...-expect/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
Wind and solar have a very low environmental impact...
A landscape covered by bird-choppers and black panels is "green" according to environuts.
"Biggest difference between faux environmentalists supporting industrial wind turbines & real conservationists who do not is that faux environmentalists see through the lens of a manipulative political agenda while real conservationists see the world as it is through their souls."
https://pbs.twimg...60Jc.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...3AJr.jpg
"They are just too inefficient to be feasible. They have too many moving parts, maintenance is dangerous and very expensive, and they don't generate much electricity, compared to conventional coal/nuclear plants."
https://pbs.twimg...KCpr.jpg
Wind and solar have a very low environmental impact compared to fossil fuels
Wind and solar are inherently intermittent, not alternative to fossil fuels, they provide them with "greenwashing".
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
A landscape covered by bird-choppers and black panels is "green" according to environuts
Yes - on balance wind and solar have a lower footprint than fossil fuels. Measuring them against nukes is a more difficult task - so not being the liar that you are - I am willing to say that they are both low carbon fuels, and leave it at that. At least I can sleep at night - knowing that I have not needed to resort to shitty liar behavior - like making this kind of unsupportable assertion.
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density


WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2018
Yes - on balance wind and solar have a lower footprint than fossil fuels.
Wind and solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels, intermittent renewables don't displace coal/oil/gas.
wind/solar = 20%wind/solar + 80%coal/oil/gas
"Nuclear power plants operated at full capacity 92% of the time in 2017---by far the most of any energy source."
https://pbs.twimg...Tfqf.jpg

"Solar / wind promoters are in bed with coal / natural gas producers. That's why almost everybody opposes nuclear. That is why Germany decided to eliminate nuclear, NOT coal. "
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2018
Wind and solar aren't alternative to fossil fuels,
Yes they are. Right here you see a prime example of the displacement of coal and gas - by wind and solar. You are just an ignorant liar.

https://theconver...al-89598

Why don't you acknowledge that you said this -
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
And thus have no business commenting on anything to do with power. You and your buddy Donnie just can't stop telling lies.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
From you link: "Winds of change: Britain now generates twice as much electricity from wind as coal"
Reality:
"All wind farms experience lulls from time to time. In Britain, turbines produced almost no electricity for more than a week at the start of this month. The U.K. also is due to have fewer breezes in the coming days than it did this week." - Jun 22, 2018
https://pbs.twimg...vdlh.jpg
"Weird 'wind drought' means Britain's turbines are at a standstill" - July 17, 2018
https://www.newsc...ndstill/
"Britain's Wind Drought Exposes Big Green's Epic Stupidity" - July 19, 2018
https://principia...upidity/
https://www.expre...t-office
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
All wind farms experience lulls from time to time
It is called INTERMITTENCY. We know about it. We keep telling you that we know about it. Does not change the reality of the contribution that wind is making to lowering Britain's carbon footprint. Providing cheap/clean power to the world. You just keep recycling lies - like this one
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
You are a disgrace to our species.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
... is making to lowering Britain's carbon footprint.
It's the replacement of coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂) that is lowering Britain's carbon footprint.
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...2PT_.jpg

The best you can do is call liar who debunks your lies.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
It's the replacement of coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄)
Wow - you really don't know which way is up do you? Here is a quote from your last post on another thread -
UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas


So you contradict yourself - dummy. Carbon emissions are down in the electricity sector - which means we are making progress. We make progress by being honest, and informed. Not an ignorant liar who tells lies like this
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
...renewables backed up by natural gas...
Intermittent renewables are just a decorative facade, an expensive form of providing "greenwashing" to keep expansion of the gas/fracking industry.
Carbon emissions are down in the electricity sector
Mainly thanks to natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂).
"Gas, not renewables, driving coal, nuclear woes; DOE labs show how much"
https://www.utili.../513796/
"The consensus among power sector experts is that persistently low natural gas prices and flat power demand are pushing coal and nuclear plants offline — not renewable energy."
http://www.utilit.../503357/

"The green movement is a religion rife with corruption, bad science and hysteria, and nuclear – not renewables – is the best solution to our energy needs."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
Intermittent renewables are just a decorative facade,
Tell that to countries that are getting 50% of their electricity from renewables. You just don't know the facts.

Mainly thanks to natural gas(methane(CH₄)
Then how do you explain the fact that gas usage is down, and it is actually renewable energy that is replacing coal? See the pretty picture I already showed you - showing that UK is using LESS gas today than it was 10 years ago - as well as much LESS coal, but MORE renewables. You can't even read a graph....
https://theconver...al-89598
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
Tell that to countries that are getting 50% of their electricity from renewables.
"Truth: ~40% of Britain's RE comes from wood pellets & landfill methane"
Then how do you explain the fact that gas usage is down,
Because demand is down due to electricity prices skyrocketing thanks to penetration of intermittent renewables.

"A carbon tax will kill renewable deployment because it will increase the price of natural gas which is a backup for RE. But it will make nuclear power immediately profitable. This is why a lot of "greens" are really against it deep in their hearts."
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2018
Truth: ~40% of Britain's RE comes from wood pellets & landfill methane
So what? The point is that the transition is well under way. What about Spain? https://renewecon...r-83475/

I could link to the 63 countries listed here having more than 50% renewables -

https://en.wikipe..._sources

But it would not affect you - as you and Donnie live in a fact free world don't you? Two big fat liars - like this one - q]Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density

WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2018
Any energy source has an environmental cost which is inversely proportional to its energy density
Not only birds and bats, renewables also kill people.
"More unnecessary deaths by renewable hydro. So much worse than Fukushima or even Chernobyl." - July 2018
https://www.bbc.c...44935495
"If a nuclear project caused fraction of this devastation, global industry would be fucking crucified by Greenpeace and dozens of derivative hypocrite organisations."
"Dam collapse highlights risks to communities as Laos seeks to become hydroelectricity hub" - Aug 3, 2018
http://www.abc.ne...10071836
"Most fans of renewable energy explicitly reject renewable hydroelectricity if it involves damming a river. Most renewable energy-lovers are also dam-haters."
"Europe is demolishing its dams to restore ecosystems" - May 16, 2018
https://www.natur...-05182-1
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
I could link to the 63 countries listed here having more than 50% renewables
Most of renewables are hydro and biomass(worse than coal & competes with agriculture).
"If you look around a little http://electricitymap.org , you will quickly notice that countries with low CO2 emissions create this with a lot of hydropower, with a lot of nuclear energy or with a lot of both."
Hydro & nuclear work very well together.
Wind & solar cannot complement Hydro without coal/gas-fired backup plants for when wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining or during prolonged droughts.
Wind & solar are only required to provide "greenwashing" for the fossil fuel industry.
Wind & solar are fossil-addicted parasites.

"$2 trillion invested in solar and wind during the past 10 years represents an amount of similar in magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion. Yet carbon emissions continue to increase. We could have put it into nuclear!"
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2018
Hydro & nuclear work very well together
So do renewables and hydro - ask Scotland, Norway, Costa Rica etc. etc. etc. Oh look you are once again a big fat liar.
Wind & solar cannot complement Hydro without coal/gas-fired backup plants


Once again - I would promote an 'all of the above' policy that integrated cheap renewables - with expensive nukes. I just don't need to be a big fat liar like you and your buddy Donnie.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
Costa Rica is >90% hydro/geothermal, Norway is mostly hydro, Scotland is connected to UK fossil-fueled grid.
Wind and solar are useless placebos just to please the Eco-nuts, and of course, the fossil fuel industry where huge quantities of coal/oil/gas are needed to manufacture/mine/transport/install/maintain/repair/recycle these eco-friendly birds-choppers/landscape-destroyers.

"Alibaba sells SF6 Gas in "minimum order" amounts of 10,000 kilos! Huge orders are needed because of the constant use and release of SF6 gas is needed for the etching microfabrication process of solar-cells"
https://en.wikipe...ar_cells
https://www.epa.g...industry

"GHG emissions from solar panel semi conductor manufacturing out does most countries entire CO2 emissions. Gases like SF6 or NF3 at up to 17,000 more warming than CO2 and stay in the atmosphere for 1000s of years."
https://pbs.twimg...1zJB.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2018
Costa Rica is >90% hydro/geothermal,
You can find an argument against anything if you want. That does not detract from the fact that renewables are a viable source of power - just as nukes are. Wind and solar are surging around the world - and supplying cheap/clean/distributed energy - and the numbers are doing nothing but go up. Wind now generates more power than nukes - https://www.japan...OpPZFymF

I consider hydro a viable energy source - just as I do nuclear. I hope that we adopt a pedal to the metal - all of the above strategy. It is liars like you - and the overlords of the fossil fuel industry that are likely to push our species out of existence. here - https://www.resil...of-hell/

You are in group 2/3 - and you are sick....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
Wind and solar are surging around the world
Undoubtedly wind and solar are surging around the world in terms of thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts for almost nothing in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.
Intermittent renewables are a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.
"Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat" - Nov 2017
https://www.nytim...les.html
"Carbon Emissions Rose in 2017 Despite Record Solar & Wind -- More Proof They Can't Save The Climate" - Jun 2018
https://www.forbe...climate/
"2017 Was Another Record-Busting Year for Renewable Energy, but Emissions Still Increased"

Cheap?
"Do we need smart grids because we make stupid decisions?"
https://pbs.twimg...RiCK.jpg
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2018
Intermittent renewables are a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change
Willie Ward is a grotesque fiasco, and a big liar. Britain's carbon emissions from power generation are down significantly - and they now generate more power from wind - than they do from nukes. So I guess it is nukes that are the 'decorative facade' - and wind is kicking nukes ass. Shame you and Donnie live in a world of alternative facts - makes you the laughing stock of anyone that values the facts.

Global investment in renewable energy - $333 billion - https://data.bloo...2017.pdf

Global investment in nukes - $17 billion.http://www.world-...185.html

Renewable energy installation - 178 GW. https://www.reute...CN1IZ0YL
cont.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2018
Nukes installed in 2017 - 4 plants were connected to the grid GLOBALLY in 2017. These plants probably averaged around 2 GW, but even if they were really big ones - and generated 4 GW, that would equal 16 GW installed in 2017.. So who is lying about the "Decorative Façade" Willie liar?????

https://www.stati...he-grid/
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2018
Britain's carbon emissions from power generation are down significantly
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...2PT_.jpg
and they now generate more power from wind - than they do from nukes.
Not alone, they are backed up >80% of time by gas plants to compensate intermittencies; wind/solar are decorative facade for the fossil fuel industry.
Global investment in renewable energy - $333 billion
Waste of money, thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity of intermittent energy just to provide "greenwashing" to keep the expansion of the gas/fracking industry.

Face the reality: intermittent renewables have failed miserably at reducing emissions even after trillions of dollars spent worldwide; windmills and solar panels have done more 'harm' than 'good' for environment and ecology. Carbon-free nuclear is the safest and the most eco-friendly.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2018
"No energy source does more with less."
"Despite a net loss of 12 reactors since 1990, U.S. nuclear increased its power production by nearly 40% and raised its capacity factor to more than 92%."
https://pbs.twimg...gP0s.jpg
around 2 GW
It's interesting that wind/solar even with thousands of gigawatts of installed-capacity are unable to displace coal/gas, reduce emissions and keep electricity bills affordable, e.g Germany; while carbon-free nuclear energy with just few gigawatts turned on has reduced emissions, electricity prices and dependence on fossil fuels, e.g. Japan.

Greentards don't know the difference between quantity and quality, as well capacity and production.
Carbon-free nuclear energy has high quality/reliability/resilience.
Wind/solar energy has low quality, it's unreliable/weather-dependent, and in less than 15 years most of wind/solar farms will be just a bunch of junkyards that costed trillions of dollars.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2018
Greentards don't know the difference between quantity and quality
Nuke tards have nothing but lies. I definitely understand the difference between quality and quantity. Here in Oklahoma - we get 1/3 of our electricity from wind, and at some of the best rates in the world. That is both quality and quantity. Britain now generates more electricity from wind, than from coal or nukes. Their carbon emissions from the electricity sector are down dramatically. That is quantity and quality. https://www.globa...2018-re/
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2018
Here in Oklahoma
Oklahoma has cheap electricity prices because the state has lots of cheap gas/fracking that needs to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
I definitely understand the difference between quality and quantity.
Environuts are celebrating 1,000,000,000,000 watts, i.e. one thousand of gigawatts of installed-capacity of intermittent energy for almost nothing to show in terms of reduction in emissions. Natural gas is that has halved most of emissions.
"The world now has more than one terawatt of wind and solar" - Aug 6, 2018
https://www.busin...nd-solar
"Green Energy Producers Just Installed Their First Trillion Watts" - Aug 2, 2018
"The next trillion will cost $1.2 trillion by 2023, almost half of the price-tag for the first, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance"
https://www.bloom...on-watts
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2018
Oklahoma has cheap electricity prices because the state has lots of cheap gas/fracking
And cheap wind. There fixed that for you - you little liar.

The next trillion will cost $1.2 trillion by 2023
$1.20 per watt - pretty damn cheap. Beats Nuclear at $10 per watt. https://www.foxbu...-georgia

And you don't have to baby sit nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years. Wind sure is a good deal.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
$1.20 per watt - pretty damn cheap.
"Batteries not included".
A thousand of gigawatts of installed-capacity of intermittent energy("greenwashing" (decorative facade) for the coal/oil/gas industries) that will become a bunch of junkyards in less than 15 years, and that will be remembered as a trillion-dollar fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.
Wind and solar = "The Scam of The 21stCentury".
https://uploads.d...a1b3.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...4Pce.jpg
"Experts forecast hundreds of thousands of tons of old wind turbine blades, batteries, and solar modules will need to be disposed of or recycled in the next decade—and millions of tons by 2050."
https://cen.acs.o...s/96/i15
"Nuclear energy - the only energy whose industry takes full responsibility for its waste"
greenonions1
not rated yet Aug 07, 2018
Wind and solar = "The Scam of The 21stCentury
Just saying something stupid - does not make you appear smart. Nukes are costing $10 a watt - plus a special tax to cover the cost of waste management. No wonder Hinkley Point is screwing the British rate payer for 12 Kwh. No wonder China alone installed 24 GW of solar in just 6 months. https://www.pv-te...-of-2018

No wonder only 16 GW (at most) of nukes was installed in 2017 - https://www.stati...he-grid/

No wonder Willie liar is howling at the moon - but the tide just wont listen to him - it just keeps coming in.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2018
No wonder only 16 GW (at most) of nukes was installed in 2017
Definitively Greentards don't know the difference between quantity & quality.
A few gigawatts of reliable/high-quality carbon-free nuclear displaces fossil fuels, reduces emissions and electricity prices e.g. Japan.
A trillions of watts (thousand of gigawatts) of intermittent/unreliable/low-quality wind/solar are simply a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions, displacing fossil fuels, and have caused the electricity prices to skyrocket, e.g. Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc.
No wonder China alone installed 24 GW of solar in just 6 months
"You've heard that old-school enviro org mantra: "Can't build nuclear energy fast enough to affect climate change soon enough" ? Seems China wasn't listening ..."
China Nuclear electricity generation in TWh:
2010 71
2011 83
2012 93
2013 105
2014 124
2015 161
2016 198
2017 233

Wind/solar cultists never include batteries
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2018
Maybe you don't know the difference between gigawatts, and Twh. Currently China has about 35 GW of nukes - https://en.wikipe...in_China

China installed 52 GW of solar in 2017 alone - bringing their total capacity to 130 GW. With a 25 % capacity factor - that still leaves nukes in the dust. https://cleantech...017-nea/]https://cleantech...017-nea/[/url]

https://cleantech...017-nea/]https://cleantech...017-nea/[/url]
Now talk about wind.... https://en.wikipe...in_China

That is 241 Twh in 2016. - and they installed another 52 GW in 2017. In other words - renewables left nukes standing in the dust. Maybe because nukes are so expensive. That is why the poor dupes in Britain are getting screwed for 12 cents Kwh. We will take 4 cents wind and solar - going down every day....
WillieWard
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2018
Currently China has about 35 GW of nukes
It's easy to understand:
35 GW of nuclear (>90% capacity factor) = ~35 GW of carbon-free energy
100 GW of wind/solar (<30% capacity factor) = ~20GW of wind/solar + 80GW of coal/oil/gas to compensate intermittencies

Greentards don't know the difference between "apples and oranges", the difference between a reliable/weather-resilient gigawatt of carbon-free nuclear energy and an unreliable/weather-dependent/fossil-parasite gigawatt of intermittent energy.
Just remember: 100GW of wind/solar and Germany is struggling to cut emissions and dependence on fossil fuels; while Japan, by restarting just a few gigawatts of carbon-free nuclear energy, has reduced electricity prices, emissions and dependence on coal/gas.

"The Dark Side of China's Solar Boom" - Jul 17, 2018
http://www.sixtht...ar-boom-
http://image5.six.../132.jpg

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.